IDP on RID Board Referendum

[Kelly Decker]

RID has disseminated a referendum to add an IDP position to the National RID Board of Directors.   An IDP is an interpreter who has been raised in an environment with one or more Deaf parents.  This has been sent to all associate and certified members.

If you would like more information about this vote please view the following vlogs:

IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U

Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc

Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8

You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org

Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this referendum.

Kelly Decker
IDP Region I Representative

[Eileen Forestal]

I voted yes. 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Betty Colonomos]

I voted YES!

[Stephanie Feyne]

Thanks Kelly, for sharing this with us!

I read all the info from RID and watched the videos from IDP.

And I, too, voted yes. 

With all due respect to the Diversity Council, I think they missed the point of having an IDP rep on the board. 

As important as I believe it is for RID to respect the diversity of our members, only 2 member sections represent the lived experience of 1/2 of our consumers - the Deaf Caucus and IDP.

I believe that we do need to ensure that the lived experience of Deaf people and codas is present on our Board, not just through tokenism, but through careful selection of thoughtful, conscientious, and well vetted members at large who will bring Deaf heart and Deaf lived experience back to our Board. 

We know that it's not an easy thing to be on the Board, and I thank all who have taken it on, and yet, over the past 10-15 years, we have been making some decisions that I feel do not consider the best interests of the Deaf consumers. By adding the IDP member to the Board, in addition to the Deaf member, we are pledging to have the lived experience of Deaf people and their families be a part of all of our considerations.

I'm certainly old enough to remember that those who brought me into this field were Deaf people and codas. It's shocking to see how few of them now are on our Board, and how few of them are our teachers.

I'm all for this motion and I hope we can have a good discussion, and get the word out to our fellow members that this is an important issue.

Thanks!

Stephanie

If you want to read the motion - Here is the RID page: 

http://www.rid.org/content/index.cfm/AID/135

There is currently a Bylaws vote open to the RID membership from now until midnight EDT, February 15, 2013, for the creation of a new position on the RID Board of Directors: Interpreters with Deaf Parents (IDP) Member at Large.

Before voting, please read the below. To vote, log in to your member account and click on "Take a Survey," and "Addition of IDP Member-at-Large on the RID Board of Directors." 

Vote Now>>

--

[Cokely, Dennis]

Stephanie -

I agree; the Diversity Council, I believe, failed to fully understand the issue. I agree that there are many populations that are underrepresented on the Board and in the leadership, but the failure to acknowledge the roots of the organization and the special lived wisdom that can be offered by IDPs. It is patently problematic to view a designated IDP Board member in the way we might view Board members of any designated ethnicity. The reservations posed by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point – the fiscal cost (which, by the way, will pale in comparison to the provision of Spanish interpretation at all sessions of all future conferences) should not be a factor in doing the right thing. If the Board is contemplating proposing a reconstruction of itself, then that should be done with input from an IDP member. The straw-man argument that there are not more IDPs involved in the leadership rings hollow; this is clearly a case of "if you build it they will come".

Let's build it! I voted YES!!!

dennis

Dennis Cokely
Director, American Sign Language Program
Director, World Languages Center
Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures

Northeastern University
617 373-8425 
857 366 4204 [VP]

[Phlip]

Agree with all. Voted yes. Was historic to see this presented, defended, and moved at the 2011 conference.

On Dec 18, 2012, at 19:19, "Cokely, Dennis" <d.co...@neu.edu> wrote:

Stephanie -

I agree; the Diversity Council, I believe, failed to fully understand the issue. I agree that there are many populations that are underrepresented on the Board and in the leadership, but the failure to acknowledge the roots of the organization and the special lived wisdom that can be offered by IDPs. It is patently problematic to view a designated IDP Board member in the way we might view Board members of any designated ethnicity. The reservations posed by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point – the fiscal cost (which, by the way, will pale in comparison to the provision of Spanish interpretation at all sessions of all future conferences) should not be a factor in doing the right thing. If the Board is contemplating proposing a reconstruction of itself, then that should be done with input from an IDP member. The straw-man argument that there are not more IDPs involved in the leadership rings hollow; this is clearly a case of "if you build it they will come".

Let's build it! I voted YES!!!

dennis

Dennis Cokely
Director, American Sign Language Program
Director, World Languages Center
Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures

Northeastern University
617 373-8425 
857 366 4204 [VP]

<3FEC9440-1F65-4E2B-B6EA-E6A978C3CEAB[85].png>

[Bram Weiser]

With all due respect, I feel a bit like Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men" at the
beginning of his jury's deliberations.

I voted "no" and was astonished to see the fervor that accompanied this motion
both when it was proposed in Atlanta in 2011 as well as that with which it's
been defended and supported in this listserv.

No one...absolutely no one...is saying that either Deaf people or CODAs are
somehow unqualified for, or incapable of serving in, the various other
positions on RID's Board. Yet, for some reason, we've created not just a
Deaf-specific Member-At-Large position and also, with this proposal, are
trying to create one for CODAs as well in order to ensure their presence on
RID's Board.

If a Deaf person is otherwise qualified to serve on RID's Board, such as in a
Regional Representative role, or as a (regular) Member-At-Large, Secretary,
Treasurer, Vice President or President, and that person wishes to run for one
of those positions, then by all means that person should absolutely enter a
race for such a position and attempt to win its election on a playing field
that's even and considers all qualified candidates equally and without undue
harm or favor. The same should also apply to CODAs...or, for that matter, to
anyone else who meets those qualifications and wishes to run.

Naturally, then, if such a Deaf person or CODA wins election to the Board,
then the other Board members, along with the thousands of members of RID, will
enjoy the benefit of such a person serving there for his/her term. However,
if such a person does not win election, then that would be the decision of the
electorate as well and would need to be respected in an equivalent fashion.
RID should not be asked with a proposal like this to put its proverbial finger
on the scale in order to ensure that one constituency or another has specific
representation on its Board.

Let the best-qualified, and most-interested, people run for a position, and
let the collective judgement of the voting membership (or lack thereof)
determine who should win and serve. That's how it's always been, and that's
also how it should continue to be.

(By the way, Kelly's email, below, is a copy of one I'd seen before, and I'm
left to wonder how what appears at a glance to be purely "informational" to
members about the proposal, nonetheless includes two {2} sets of remarks
clearly marked as being in "support" of the proposal, yet includes none that
are against. I don't know who originated it -- Was it the IDP Member
Section, which Kelly represents? Was it someone else? -- but I'm left to
wonder how that email got created in the first place, and why no responsible
spokesperson{s} against the proposal didn't have remarks linked-to in a
similar fashion so that members could be more fully informed before making a
decision on this important question.)

Sincerely,
Bram Weiser, MS, CT
New York

[Stephanie Feyne]

Dear Members,

I want to fess up.

I asked IDP to send us information on this motion.

I appreciate that Kelly gave us their perspective and shared their video links with us as most RID , and I assume NIDG members are not codas and probably did not have access to these materials.

The RID web page gives 6 paragraphs to support the position of the Diversity Council and only 1 to support that of IDP.

I apologize for not making that clear earlier.

Thank you, Kelly, for sharing the perspective of IDP.

I hope we do continue to discuss this motion and I encourage us to bring these discussions back to our local chapters. With the holidays approaching, The Feb 15 voting deadline will be here before we know it.







Stephanie

Typos courtesy iPhone:)

[Ballewbird]

I voted no on this measure.  I believe that it is not serving our profession well to divide ourselves into so many sub-groups.  It is interfering with our ability to support and mentor each other and have open dialogue and discussion about controversial issues affecting us.  What is next?  Will we have to make sure this IDP has a proper pedigree?  Perhaps and IDP has an oral Deaf parent.  Does that count?  Perhaps an IDP's parents used SEE or Cued Speech.  Will that count?  Will the IDP have to provide a resume to make sure that they were exposed to the right amount of Deaf Culture to qualify?  We can keep dividing ourselves this way, but it will only serve to stall us from moving forward.  

Jenny Ballew

NIC, A:EI

[jmil...@frii.com]

Love your comment Jenny Ballew!

On 12/19/12 07:26 AM, Ballewbird wrote:
> I voted no on this measure. I believe that it is not serving our
> profession well to divide ourselves into so many sub-groups. It is
> interfering with our ability to support and mentor each other and
> have
> open dialogue and discussion about controversial issues affecting us.
> What is next? Will we have to make sure this IDP has a proper
> pedigree? Perhaps and IDP has an oral Deaf parent. Does that count?
> Perhaps an IDP's parents used SEE or Cued Speech. Will that count?
> Will the IDP have to provide a resume to make sure that they were
> exposed to the right amount of Deaf Culture to qualify? We can keep
> dividing ourselves this way, but it will only serve to stall us from
> moving forward.
>
> Jenny Ballew
> NIC, A:EI
>
> On Monday, December 17, 2012 1:40:54 PM UTC-7, Kelly Decker wrote:
>
>> RID has disseminated a referendum to add an IDP position to the
>> National RID Board of Directors. An IDP is an interpreter who has
>> been raised in an environment with one or more Deaf parents. This
>> has been sent to all associate and certified members.
>>
>> If you would like more information about this vote please view the
>> following vlogs:
>>

>> IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U [1]
>>
>> Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc [2]
>>
>> Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8 [3]
>>
>> You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org [4]

>>
>> Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this
>> referendum.
>>
>> Kelly Decker
>> IDP Region I Representative
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [5].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [6].
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U
> [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc
> [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8
> [4] http://idp-rid.org/
> [5] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [6] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

[BD Garrett]

Bram,

Thank you for the courage to stand up and state your opinions even when you feel that you may be one of the few people differing in your opinion.

Your email, however, touched on an argument I have hear many times in many places and has prompted me to respond. 

Before I respond, I'd like to disclose that I am not a CODA, however my closest friends for 20+ years are Deaf people and CODAs.  I have lived with Deaf people (as an adult) for 7+ years and I think these close relationships have certainly influenced me in ways I believe have made me a better person.

While your argument is reasoned and well-stated, it is an argument that focuses on the means but not the ends.  We know that people who are members of minority groups are marginalized.  We know that if you put a minority up against a non-minority in almost any position (job, board member, etc.) that there is already an unspoken tip in the scales.  This is unfortunate but real.  Hence the arguments you hear for Affirmative Action in the job market are an attempt to equalize the scales.

I have heard this argument many times in various organizations.  The most significant for me was a group of male ministers (who believed women could pastor) stating that if we wanted a woman on the national church board that the woman should run against her peers like anyone else and if she is qualified, she would be voted in.  Anything less was tokenism.  I even heard women ministers come to the mic and argue against having a female representative on the Board - that women are capable and should be voted on like anyone else or they would also be offended. 

How many woman in the organization who could be nominated and who vote?  Thousands.  How many want to try to serve on a board of all men?  Few.  How many have been nominated?  One.  How many voted in?  None.
15 years later - never a woman on that national board.

So, I find that argument to mean well, however the result of it is that in almost any case, we do not have the representatives needed in the leadership.  We could look at Gallaudet BOT before DPN and see similar arguments as to why the BOT was predominantly hearing people.  We could look at several state governmental organizations that serve minorities.

I know many IDPs who are rather disenfranchised with RID.  Do they feel a true stake in the organization to run for an office?  I don't know.  While this is not the best way to face this issue, it is step towards doing something.  I think it is a sad state of disparity that we are a profession and an organization that consists mainly of people who are not native members of the community we serve.  While we are members of the ASL community, we are not part of the "Deaf Experience" and I believe this is, at the very least, one way we can honor the people we serve, and more importantly this organization will be stronger and more effective.  How can this organization be lead properly without the perspective and guidance of IDPs and Deaf?  We cannot be effective without them.  We need their insight. 

As for the Board's perceived bias - I believe that the Board has the right to bring their reasoned and supported ideas to the membership and that they can express their individual or group opinion of an issue.  This is not new.  The Board has done this on many occasions.  We may disagree with the Board, and ultimately they need our vote to move forward. 

I voted yes.

Barbara Garrett

[sbar...@yahoo.com]

Hello, is this attempt to categorize actually an attempt to rank us? Once again, separation is not the best way to get consensus. We, as a profession, have a need to rank, categorize, or possess a position. Why? Human nature?

Is every category represented in the mix?


Sandra Bartiromo

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Aaron Brace]

Hi, Jenny, et al,

I believe that all the complications you've conjectured will be answered on an individual basis by each voting member when she casts her ballot, may the best IDP win.  Surely, no one imagines they'll be overjoyed with everyone who wins the seat.  But we must not treat IDPs as just another "sub-group".  They and Deaf people are the ur-groups upon whose lived experiences everything we hope to accomplish in our profession is based.  We must not require perfection in the process before we take a step toward ensuring a place for IDPs in leadership.  We must value their contributions to our profession enough not to leave them to the vagaries of the election process for any other individual position of leadership.  To do so implies that we'll be fine if no IDP ever wins a seat.  We won't.  We haven't.

I voted "yes".

Regards,
Aaron Brace, CSC, CI & CT

[sbar...@yahoo.com]

Hello again, my vote will not be made known to all. I believe the voting process best serves the process by remaining a private process. Is voting "out loud" setting a prejudice into the process? I was surprised to see or hear who was voting which way. The original discussion of how someone voted actually caught me by surprise.


Sandra Bartiromo

[Diana MacDougall]

These were going to be my words, too, Sandra. While I highly value the open discussion on both sides, I also highly value a voting system that is confidential. I was taken aback with people announcing their votes. It somehow seems...I don't have the word for it...but it doesn't sit right with me. Prejudicing the vote? Is that a word? (Somebody help me out here...it's too early in the morning for me to find the right word.)

I know people will continue to announce as they choose. That is our right as Americans, although it may not be the most responsible thing to do. It is a privilege to be able to vote in this country without concern for retaliation. I don't take that for granted. Still, I will choose not to announce my vote so as not to publicly sway anyone else's vote. I like the right of privacy, too!

Diana MacDougall

[Maria Micioni]

This is the first time I have posted/commented in this type of environment... So I am a tad nervous about it. :-)

 

I am not a CODA.  I absolutely fell upon this community and this profession.  Moving to NYC by myself at 18yrs, I decided to take an ASL class to fill up my time.  I did not even know that 'Interpreter' was a real job.  I mean, didn't all sign language interpreters simply live in those little circles in the bottom righthand corner of the TV screen???  I volunteered, attended events, worked at a deaf school. I slowly drifted in to this world by friends who asked me to interpret for them. This was 20+ years ago, and I am so very thankful for my journey, and so very grateful to fall upon this path.

 

This past Summer, I attended the Region V conference in Hawaii.  After a meeting/workshop by IDP and DC, a group decided to head up to one of the hotel's bar/restaurants.  About 20 of us, in this grand circle.  All were CODAs except me.  All knew each other.  I felt so lucky listen to the stories from when they were growing up.  Laughing and sharing and supporting.  What a gift it was for me to have this exposure and gain perspective from their experiences. 

 

I also attended the 'Reframing Retreat' at Camp Mark 7 this past Fall.  This was an experience as well, but in a different way.  Sure, I met some amazing individuals, made new connections, and I strengthened existing bonds.  But I also saw firsthand why I feel it is so very important to create an IDP position on the board.  I felt some participants were very strongly trying to equate their own professional experiences of being an interpreter with that of the cultural experiences of growing up with deaf parents.  I felt there were feelings of "entitlement" because "now we are the same" due to the fact that they put in enough, in their minds, "time" in this community.  Are these individuals bad and wrong? Of course they are not.  But does this show an overwhelming lack of understanding?  A need for perspective?  Absolutely.

 

Of course any one can run for any position on the Board.  For example, it would be possible to have a President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer, and all Members at Large all be from Region I.  Year after year, membership could elect only people from Region I, and RID could essentially be 'The Region I Show' for ever and ever.  But this is not the case, and I appreciate the fact that there is guaranteed representation from the rest of the country with the positions of Region Reps.  Perspective is important.  

 

I was disappointed by the stance taken by the Diversity Council.  I do not believe that CODAs are "just any group" that happen to be in the make up of RID.  I mean, for me to say that I would like to be represented on the board by creating the following specific positions: 'Woman', '40s', 'Lesbian' would be a bit silly.  Instituting a position on the board for CODAs is not "showing favor to one minority group over another".  CODAs numbers may be a minority in RID at this point, but they are not a 'minority group'.  They are our history.  They are our education.  They are our perspective.  And hopefully, will be continue to influence our future.

 

I voted yes. 

 

 

Maria Micioni

[B Garrett]

Maria

Your post deeply moved me.  How beautiful it is when people of differing backgrounds come to a place of valuing the other and articulating it so well.  I would that I could express this as well as you.  

Thank you. 

Barbara Garrett

~BDG

Sent from my iPhone 

[Bram Weiser]

Thank you, Barbara.

I respect your position but continue to disagree with it.

RID isn't like many other Boards in that the makeup of RID's Board would (as I
understand it) depend on its members already being members of the organization
before being selected for a seat there, and (also as I understand it), for
some positions, status as a Certified interpreter is also a pre-requisite.
Many other Boards freely draw from the community at large in order to fill its
seats (maybe your national church board is similar?), so I believe that the
analogy could refer to a different situation than that found with RID.

Also, it's not as if there were never any Deaf people on RID's Board before a
Deaf Member-at-large slot was created. As one example, we recently had a Deaf
Vice President (I'm thinking of Jimmy Beldon), so RID's members DO elect
qualified Deaf people when given the chance, and when they (the members)
collectively feel that the Deaf candidate is the best-qualified person at the
time for the position (among those actively pursuing it).

Lastly, as I believe someone else commented before, whether here or elsewhere,
how many "under-represented" constituencies would then deserve formal seats on
RID's Board if the idea of a Deaf seat and a CODA seat get/retain support from
the membership? For instance, I heard some time ago that White/Caucasian
women represent something like 90% of (I believe it was) either the entire RID
membership or of the population of Certified interpreters. Now, even if that
figure isn't correct, I believe that the general idea of an
over-representation in RID of White/Caucasian women, as a demographic concept
when compared with the population at large, actually does exist. So, should
men have a seat set aside as well, given what they might be able to offer to
RID Board discussions? (I'm not suggesting that they should, just asking
rhetorically IF they should...) What about other constituencies? Where would
this idea no longer prove feasible to those who support it now?

I think that those wishing to vote "yes" on this proposal should at least have
a sense of how they'd answer these questions before going ahead and casting
such a vote.

Thanks again,

stake in the organization to run for an office? I don't know. While this is

> > wrote:
> >> RID has disseminated a referendum to add an IDP position to the
> National RID
> > Board of Directors. An IDP is an interpreter who has been raised in an
> > environment with one or more Deaf parents. This has been sent to all
> > associate and certified members.
> >>
> >> If you would like more information about this vote please view the
> following
> > vlogs:
> >>
> >> IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U
> >>

> >> Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc
> >>

> >> Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8
> >>

> >> You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org
> >>

> >> Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this referendum.
> >>
> >> Kelly Decker
> >> IDP Region I Representative
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Steven Hess]

Bram et al,

The argument that this is a slippery slope and that if we set aside seats on the board for Deaf and IDP members we should examine where to draw the line regarding other "under-represented" groups, even as a thought experiment, is specious at best. The difference between these two groups and and the others you mentioned is that if it were not for Deaf people and IDPs, not only would RID not exist, but there would be no need for interpreters or RID at all.

Also, your argument of where do we draw the line has had a long history of being used to deny basic human rights. Think of how the majority in-power groups have used just such an argument to scare people into continuing oppression and deny same-sex marriage, disability rights, affirmative action, etc.

Steve Hess

_______________
Steven Hess
Mobile
_______________

[BD Garrett]

Just for clarification - the organization I was referring to required Ordination to be on the "board" I mentioned.  So, I would consider it an adequate comparison.  However, setting that aside, I think that as Interpreters who are cultural and linguistic mediators between two languages and communities, it behooves us to find ways that we have members of our stakeholders at the table.  Not as token to make people happy, but because we recognize that we NEED this input.

I would not disagree with your thoughts that there be a "male" representative on the RID Board.  However, I think that is not the point of this.  I do not think there is an effort to try to include every possible minority on the Board.  (And I would agree with you that male interpreters in this profession are a minority.)  I think the issue is that we are a group of people who predominantly are not members of the culture group we serve.  In order to serve effectively we should be sure that those people are well represented in our discussions for OUR benefit so that the organization and those of us who are not from Deaf families are more effective at what we do.  Additionally, it seems to be the right and reasonable thing to do.

Can you imagine an African-American Studies department at a University that consists mainly of Caucasian faculty teaching others about Africa-American culture?  Then someone asks that a representative of the faculty who IS African-American participate in department meetings to provide a perspective that may not have been yet considered and the Department is offended and votes no because they feel they already know everything about being African-American?

You may take issue with that comparison but this is how I see it.  I am a member of this wonderful ASL community.  And I recognize that because I did not grow up in the Deafworld experience, either as Deaf or as part of a Deaf family, there are things that would never cross my mind to consider. 

I feel that our profession is made up of people who are passionate about working cross-culturally and we "get it" more than most others.  It seems to me that by ensuring that the "voice" of the community present in the IDP on the Board is a win-win for us all.  I honestly do not see the reason why it would be a bad decision.

I sincerely would love to hear the reasons why it would be detrimental for RID to have such a position on the Board.  Bram, would you please explain to me why having this position is not a good idea?  I've heard comments that this position could lead to many positions for various groups, but I don't see the correlation.  The slippery slope argument does not apply as we are not being asked to add more Board positions. (And as far as arguments go, it is one of the weakest for any issue.) We have Board positions that represent regions and the interest of a region.  Why not have a Board position that represents the very people we are in the profession for?  My understanding is this is a Certified Interpreter position as well.

I am open to your thoughts.

Barbara

[Phlip]

I try to keep in mind that prior to the laws and the money, this now nobly revered profession (hearing people say, "ooh! really, that's your job? How fascinating!") was essentially a community service performed out of necessity and generosity by church friends and family members of Deaf individuals, where a box of cigars was a welcome surprise as payment for solo-interpreting a weekend conference.

To say I have a year and a half of experience after graduating my IEP would be a generous statement. I, similarly to Maria, "fell into" this profession through ASL classes, friends, parties and bar gatherings; so a young fellow like myself is but a budding leaf peeking out amongst my green siblings in the spring canopy, but I do have an inkling of an idea about where our roots lie.

The call for an IDP board member is a call for the profession to acknowledge the distance between that past and this present. It is a call for the roots of this tree to have a guaranteed voice in its continued future growth. 

As for stating your vote or not: I'm pretty sure I can guess how, say, Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart voted in the last election, although I never heard either of them say "I'm voting for X"... If you have a strong belief and/or a stance and you're willing to voice it, it seems to me that maybe how you voted and whether you mention said vote is likely irrelevant. That said, I am also a proponent of the anonymous vote during the vote itself, and no one should be requested to profess how they cast their ballot. 

Thank you, 

Philip

[Bill Moody]

Thanks, Barbara.  I wholeheartedly agree.  And I voted YES.

 

Let’s take human rights as another example of the seeming necessity to affirm the participation of a particular group of people.  The UN ‘s Universal Declaration of Human Rights should, in fact, apply universally.  But it simply hasn’t been.  Hence, the other UN human rights instruments:  the Convention on the Rights of the Child,  the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, and the more recent Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among many others.

 

I remember well in the discussions of the UN Ad Hoc Committee which drafted the CRPD (which, to its everlasting disgrace, the US Senate recently refused to ratify, but that’s another story!), that the very countries who affirmed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was sufficient, were many of the ones who simply did not think disabled people deserved equal rights.  Targeting specific groups in this context is not divisive.  Au contraire, the ADA and the CRPD, in targeting specific measures to include disabled people, have made our societies less divisive.  Who knew that mothers with strollers would find curb cuts so handy and that closed-captioning would be so useful to hearing people in bars, to the elderly, and to immigrants?  In order to make things better, more efficient, and more inclusive, we do have to be specific.

 

Barbara’s  ‘women pastors’ example seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

 

And she is right on the money when she says that we non-codas really do need the influence of true native signers in our professional lives (and, who knew?, in our personal lives as well).

 

I was struck by Jenny’s comment that this will “divide ourselves into so many sub-groups.  It is interfering with our ability to support and mentor each other and have open dialogue and discussion about controversial issues affecting us.”  It almost can be construed as “We non-codas are really more comfortable discussing our professional lives with other professionals who we are used to, rather than getting over-involved with the Deaf community.”  Maybe I am reading too much into it, but I am very concerned when young interpreters, and even presenters at RID conferences, talk about limiting our contact with the communities we serve.

 

Bill Moody.

[Bill Moody]

There is absolutely nothing irresponsible about announcing one's vote!
Informed voting after vigorous discussion is the best way to get it right,
we all hope.
Voters are free to announce how they vote, as they are free to refrain from
trying to influence others if they so desire.
Bill Moody.

-----Original Message-----
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

[Bill Moody]

I would just like to repeat Aaron’s statement:

 

Codas and Deaf people are the ur-groups upon whose lived experiences everything we hope to accomplish in our profession is based.

 

Bill Moody.

[jmil...@frii.com]

Hi Bill,
I appreciate your comments, especially about the CRPD which I am so sad
about. I did want to say that I am happy to hear both sides of the
issue. I appreciate all of the support for the IDP position, and
hearing support of having IDP's on the board from CODA's, non-CODA's and
people respected in the field is important and giving me a good sense of
where they are coming from. but I am encouraging people that are not in
support of having an IDP on the board to state their views too. Only
when we can have rational, non-emotional voices on both sides, can we
come to an understanding of each others' point of view without
assumptions. I also am appreciating the asking clarifying questions on
the part of the email-er rather than jumping to conclusions.

When I ran for office a forever ago, one of the things I did rather
than target my door-to-door campaign, was to try to get to every
constituent I could. Especially when it came to issues where I had
strong feelings about, it was really good to hear the other side so I
could get a handle on why folks felt that way. Only when I heard all
points of view (and some points I hadn't even though of) could I feel
like I could speak intelligently for my position and at the same time
being respectful for people that felt differently.

I feel the same about this issue. I respect all of you and thank you
for your input for this important discussion.
Jenny Miller

On 12/19/12 02:44 PM, Bill Moody wrote:
> Thanks, Barbara. I wholeheartedly agree. And I voted YES.
>
> Let's take human rights as another example of the seeming necessity
> to affirm the participation of a particular group of people. The UN
> 's
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights should, in fact, apply
> universally. But it simply hasn't been. Hence, the other UN human
> rights instruments: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
> Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
> the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
> Against Women, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the
> Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, and the more recent
> Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among many
> others.
>
> I remember well in the discussions of the UN Ad Hoc Committee which
> drafted the CRPD (which, to its everlasting disgrace, the US Senate
> recently refused to ratify, but that's another story!), that the very
> countries who affirmed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> was sufficient, were many of the ones who simply did not think
> disabled people deserved equal rights. Targeting specific groups in

> this context is _not_ divisive. _Au contraire_, the ADA and the CRPD,

> in targeting specific measures to include disabled people, have made

> our societies _less_ divisive. Who knew that mothers with strollers

> would find curb cuts so handy and that closed-captioning would be so
> useful to hearing people in bars, to the elderly, and to immigrants?
> In order to make things better, more efficient, and more inclusive,
> we

> _do_ have to be specific.

>
> Barbara's 'women pastors' example seems to be the rule rather than
> the exception.
>
> And she is right on the money when she says that we non-codas really
> do need the influence of true native signers in our professional
> lives
> (and, who knew?, in our personal lives as well).
>
> I was struck by Jenny's comment that this will "divide ourselves into
> so many sub-groups. It is interfering with our ability to support and
> mentor each other and have open dialogue and discussion about
> controversial issues affecting us." It almost can be construed as "We
> non-codas are really more comfortable discussing our professional
> lives with other professionals who we are used to, rather than
> getting
> over-involved with the Deaf community." Maybe I am reading too much
> into it, but I am very concerned when young interpreters, and even
> presenters at RID conferences, talk about limiting our contact with
> the communities we serve.
>
> Bill Moody.
>

> FROM: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] ON BEHALF
> OF BD Garrett
> SENT: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:53 AM
> TO: NI...@googlegroups.com
> SUBJECT: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum

> On Dec 18, 2012, at 11:41 PM, "Bram Weiser" <bramw...@usa.net [2]>

>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 19:19, "Cokely, Dennis" <d.co...@neu.edu [8]>

> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephanie -
>>>
>>> I agree; the Diversity Council, I believe, failed to fully
> understand the
>> issue. I agree that there are many populations that are
> underrepresented on
>> the Board and in the leadership, but the failure to acknowledge the
> roots of
>> the organization and the special lived wisdom that can be offered
> by IDPs. It
>> is patently problematic to view a designated IDP Board member in
> the way we
>> might view Board members of any designated ethnicity. The
> reservations posed

>> by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point - the

> fiscal
>> cost (which, by the way, will pale in comparison to the provision
> of Spanish
>> interpretation at all sessions of all future conferences) should
> not be a
>> factor in doing the right thing. If the Board is contemplating
> proposing a
>> reconstruction of itself, then that should be done with input from
> an IDP
>> member. The straw-man argument that there are not more IDPs
> involved in the
>> leadership rings hollow; this is clearly a case of "if you build it
> they will
>> come".
>>>
>>> Let's build it! I voted YES!!!
>>>
>>> dennis
>>>
>>> Dennis Cokely
>>> Director, American Sign Language Program
>>> Director, World Languages Center
>>> Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures
>>> Northeastern University

>>> 617 373-8425 [9]
>>> 857 366 4204 [10] [VP]

>>> http://www.rid.org/content/index.cfm/AID/135 [16]

>>>
>>> There is currently a Bylaws vote open to the RID membership from
> now until
>> midnight EDT, February 15, 2013, for the creation of a new position
> on the RID
>> Board of Directors: Interpreters with Deaf Parents (IDP) Member at
> Large.
>>>
>>> Before voting, please read the below. To vote, log in to your
> member account
>> and click on "Take a Survey," and "Addition of IDP Member-at-Large
> on the RID
>> Board of Directors."
>>>
>>> Vote Now>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Kelly Decker

> <kdeck...@yahoo.com [17]>

>> wrote:
>>> RID has disseminated a referendum to add an IDP position to the
> National RID
>> Board of Directors. An IDP is an interpreter who has been raised in
> an
>> environment with one or more Deaf parents. This has been sent to
> all
>> associate and certified members.
>>>
>>> If you would like more information about this vote please view the
> following
>> vlogs:
>>>

>>> IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U [18]

>>>
>>> Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc

> [19]

>>>
>>> Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8

> [20]
>>>
>>> You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org [21]

>>>
>>> Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this
> referendum.
>>>
>>> Kelly Decker
>>> IDP Region I Representative
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

>>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [22].

>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [23].

>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en

> [24].

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [25].

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

>>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [26].

>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [27].

>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en

> [28].

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [29].

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

>>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [30].

>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [31].

>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en

> [32].

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [33].

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [34].

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [35].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [36].

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [37].

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [38].

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [39].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [40].

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [41].

>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [42].

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [43].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [44].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [45].

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com [46].

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com [47].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [48].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [49].

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en [50].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> [51].
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:stef...@gmail.com
> [2] mailto:bramw...@usa.net
> [3] mailto:phlip....@gmail.com
> [4] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [5] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [6] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [7] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [8] mailto:d.co...@neu.edu
> [9] http://webmail.frii.com/tel:617%20373-8425
> [10] http://webmail.frii.com/tel:857%20366%204204
> [11] mailto:stef...@gmail.com
> [12] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [13] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [14] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [15] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [16] http://www.rid.org/content/index.cfm/AID/135
> [17] mailto:kdeck...@yahoo.com
> [18] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U
> [19] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc
> [20] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8
> [21] http://idp-rid.org
> [22] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [23] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [24] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [25] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [26] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [27] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [28] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [29] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [30] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [31] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [32] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [33] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [34] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [35] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [36] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [37] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [38] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [39] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [40] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [41] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [42] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [43] mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> [44] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [45] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [46] mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com
> [47] mailto:NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com
> [48] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [49] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> [50] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> [51] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

[Cokely, Dennis]

To all-

To those of you who have not done so, I strongly encourage you to read Amy
Williamson's wonderfully thoughtful post on StreetLeverage that speaks
directly to this issue:

http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/11/the-cost-of-invisibility-codas-and-th
e-sign-language-interpreting-profession/

Ensuring that a coda sits on the RID Board is a means of ensuring that we,
as an organization, always have institutional access to those whose lived
experiences are in the "spaces in between". This is not and should not be
about needing to determine "the right" coda or the coda's "pedigree" (the
motion says that one must be a certified member, but does not specify the
certification); in my opinion, this should be less about the type of
communication used in the household but much, much more about the
experience of living in a household with d/Deaf parents. Amy puts it quite
eloquently when she states: "Our uniqueness doesn¹t have to do with
language fluency. Defining a coda by language fluency or
native/near-native/native-like signing fluency misses the point
completely."

It is this uniqueness that we dare not lose. It is only from codas that we
non-codas can be constantly reminded of the "small acts of discrimination"
that Deaf people (i.e. codas' parents) experience on a daily basis and the
implications that they have for our work. This is, in my opinion,
absolutely not at all about, nor should it be about, trying to ensure
Board representation for each and every minority group that exists within
the organization. Rather, it is clearly about ensuring that, as the
organization moves forward, we do not lose this invaluable and precious
perspective.

This is not the start of a slippery slope, in my opinion.

I also agree with Bill -- I have heard at the last national conference
and, most recently, at the Region 1 conference comments and presentations
that claim that in order to maintain neutrality and objectivity,
interpreters should not interact with Deaf people. This is an absolutely
indefensible position to assert - languages change constantly and if we
have no Deaf friends/acquaintances how do we "keep up"? If we spend no
time among Deaf people then we are spending all of our time with folks who
are not Deaf - seems problematic to me. This is precisely why we need the
coda perspective - to continuously remind us of the need to be in touch
with deaf people and to provide us with the insights of a life clearly
lived "in between".

And I voted YES!

dennis

Dennis Cokely
Director, American Sign Language Program
Director, World Languages Center
Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and CulturesNortheastern

University
617 373-8425
857 366 4204 [VP]

>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Juliann Wasisco]

A. M. E. N. So Very Well Said! Thank you so much!

Juliann Wasisco CDI

-----Original Message-----
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

[Bram Weiser]

Hi, Barbara,

Thanks for clarifying about the Board you spoke of.

I think I've written quite a bit here so I'm loathe to belabor the point
further. However, to answer your question the best that I can, I guess I'd
say that creating an IDP/CODA seat on the Board, to go with the Deaf seat,
does (to my eyes) indeed reduce the seatholder somewhat to "just" a
representative of those with the same status. It also seems to presume
(incorrectly, as I believe someone else already noted) that anyone and
everyone who'd hold that particular seat have a common experience and could be
presumed to be fairly equivalent to one another from the same group in their
approach to issues that may come up before the Board.

To that latter point, I'd simply wonder, if there were, say, an
"African-American" seat in the US Senate, would we honestly see the gentleman
(whose name escapes me) from South Carolina who's apparently going to be
nominated to fill Jim DeMint's seat there as "equivalent" -- insofar as he's
African-American -- to, say, Eleanor Holmes Norton (Washington D.C.'s
Representative in the House), Charles Rangel (Northern Manhattan's), or anyone
else with the same racial background. If not (and I submit that their
backgrounds are NOT equivalent) then that would, right there, seem to defeat
the purpose of such a seat being useful in the first place. I'd hazard a
guess that IDPs/CODAs would also have similar "diversity" within that group
(as Deaf people would within their group) and, as such, would seem (to me,
anyway) to make the point of having a seat set aside for them quite moot.

Likewise, as I wrote earlier, there is no bar whatsoever to an IDP/CODA or
Deaf person serving on the Board in any other capacity. If a member truly
believes (and I don't) that one's status is more important than other
qualities that a person could bring to Board service, then by all means vote
for a person on that basis. However, I say that we should let the Board have
the most-qualified people among those who are interested in participating (at
least the most-qualified as seen by the voting members) for that is the
function of a democracy and, the last time I looked, earning the right to
serve on RID's Board was indeed a form of democracy (or at least it should
be), and not have people earn their way simply because of "who they personally
are" as opposed to "what they personally can do as a Member of the Board".

Sincerely,
Bram Weiser, MS, CT
New York

------ Original Message ------

Received: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:19:04 PM EST
From: BD Garrett <rooted...@gmail.com>

To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum

> when compared with the population at large, actually does exist. So,
> should

> men have a seat set aside as well, given what they might be able to offer
> to
> RID Board discussions? (I'm not suggesting that they should, just asking
> rhetorically IF they should...) What about other constituencies? Where
> would
> this idea no longer prove feasible to those who support it now?
>
> I think that those wishing to vote "yes" on this proposal should at least
> have
> a sense of how they'd answer these questions before going ahead and casting
> such a vote.
>
> Thanks again,

> Bram Weiser, MS, CT
> New York
>
> ------ Original Message ------

> Received: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:53:31 AM EST
> From: BD Garrett <rooted...@gmail.com>

> To: NI...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum
>

> > > To: "NI...@googlegroups.com" <NI...@googlegroups.com>Cc: "
> > NI...@googlegroups.com"

> > > <NI...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum
> > >

> > > Agree with all. Voted yes. Was historic to see this presented,
> defended,
> > and
> > > moved at the 2011 conference.
> > >
> > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 19:19, "Cokely, Dennis" <d.co...@neu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Stephanie -
> > >>
> > >> I agree; the Diversity Council, I believe, failed to fully understand
> > the
> > > issue. I agree that there are many populations that are
> underrepresented
> > on
> > > the Board and in the leadership, but the failure to acknowledge the
> > roots of
> > > the organization and the special lived wisdom that can be offered by
> > IDPs. It
> > > is patently problematic to view a designated IDP Board member in the
> way
> > we
> > > might view Board members of any designated ethnicity. The reservations
> > posed

> > > by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point – the

> > fiscal
> > > cost (which, by the way, will pale in comparison to the provision of
> > Spanish
> > > interpretation at all sessions of all future conferences) should not
> be a
> > > factor in doing the right thing. If the Board is contemplating
> proposing
> > a
> > > reconstruction of itself, then that should be done with input from an
> IDP
> > > member. The straw-man argument that there are not more IDPs involved in
> > the
> > > leadership rings hollow; this is clearly a case of "if you build it
> they
> > will
> > > come".
> > >>
> > >> Let's build it! I voted YES!!!
> > >>
> > >> dennis
> > >>
> > >> Dennis Cokely
> > >> Director, American Sign Language Program
> > >> Director, World Languages Center
> > >> Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures
> > >> Northeastern University
> > >> 617 373-8425

> > >> 857 366 4204 [VP]

> > >> <3FEC9440-1F65-4E2B-B6EA-E6A978C3CEAB[85].png>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Stephanie Feyne <stef...@gmail.com>
> > >> Reply-To: "NI...@googlegroups.com" <NI...@googlegroups.com>
> > >> Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:02 PM
> > >> To: "NI...@googlegroups.com" <NI...@googlegroups.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum
> > >>

> > >> There is currently a Bylaws vote open to the RID membership from now
> > until
> > > midnight EDT, February 15, 2013, for the creation of a new position on
> > the RID
> > > Board of Directors: Interpreters with Deaf Parents (IDP) Member at
> Large.
> > >>
> > >> Before voting, please read the below. To vote, log in to your member
> > account
> > > and click on "Take a Survey," and "Addition of IDP Member-at-Large on
> > the RID
> > > Board of Directors."
> > >>
> > >> Vote Now>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Kelly Decker <kdeck...@yahoo.com>

> > > wrote:
> > >> RID has disseminated a referendum to add an IDP position to the
> > National RID
> > > Board of Directors. An IDP is an interpreter who has been raised in
> an
> > > environment with one or more Deaf parents. This has been sent to all
> > > associate and certified members.
> > >>
> > >> If you would like more information about this vote please view the
> > following
> > > vlogs:
> > >>
> > >> IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U
> > >>

> > >> Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc
> > >>

> > >> Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8
> > >>

> > >> You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org
> > >>

> > >> Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this
> referendum.
> > >>
> > >> Kelly Decker
> > >> IDP Region I Representative
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

[BD Garrett]

Bram
Thank you very much for two things:

The consistent "tone" of your emails that I see as a very respectful form of communication. 

And for your taking the time to articulate your perspective.  This helps me see where you are coming from. 

I respect your thoughtful response.  I would like to continue the dialogue and plan to, but with my holiday travels (too much driving) beginning tomorrow, it might be a couple of days before I respond - and then perhaps privately.  I appreciate this timely communication the group is having. 

Barbara

[Bill Moody]

Diversity within a group does not make a representative from that group
moot. I don't understand that logic at all, Bram...
Bill.

> > > by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point -

[Bram Weiser]

Thanks, Barbara, that's very kind of you to say.

Sure, focus on your trip for the time being. This issue (certainly this
group) will still be here when you get back. :-)

Safe travels,
Bram

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:05:04 PM EST
From: BD Garrett <rooted...@gmail.com>
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum

Bram
Thank you very much for two things:

The consistent "tone" of your emails that I see as a very respectful form of
communication.

And for your taking the time to articulate your perspective. This helps me
see where you are coming from.

I respect your thoughtful response. I would like to continue the dialogue and
plan to, but with my holiday travels (too much driving) beginning tomorrow, it
might be a couple of days before I respond - and then perhaps privately. I
appreciate this timely communication the group is having.

Barbara

> > > > by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point – the

[Bram Weiser]

Bill,

My point there was this...

Why do people want to set up an IDP/CODA-specific seat (much as there's
already a Deaf-specific seat) on RID's Board? As I don't include myself in
that number, I might not be the best person to ask that of. Still, I'd bet
(based on what I've read here so far) that a key reason would be to get the
benefit of the similar experience held by those in that group.

However, as I tried to show, not all of those who self-identify as being in
that group would necessarily have so similar of an experience and, as such,
that would seem to make the point of setting a seat aside specifically for
such a group moot.

Now, that doesn't mean those folks can't run for a different Board position,
instead, if there weren't such a seat. Depending on their personal
qualifications (i.e., Certification, Geographic Region, etc.), they could well
run for, and, if elected, serve on one of the already-existing positions that
the Board still has.

Does that help to clarify? (BTW, aren't there others here {beyond the one or
two who posted accordingly after my original one} who feel that this proposal
shouldn't pass and could also speak to this point-of-view?)

Sincerely,
Bram Weiser, MS, CT
New York

------ Original Message ------

Received: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:08:15 PM EST
From: "Bill Moody" <bill...@nyc.rr.com>
To: <NI...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [NIDG] IDP on RID Board Referendum

Diversity within a group does not make a representative from that group moot.
I don't understand that logic at all, Bram...
Bill.


-----Original Message-----
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bram
Weiser
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:55 PM

> > > by the current Board and the Diversity Council miss the point -

[Debbie]

I am happy to read all views on this topic and am grateful that all feel comfortable to raise various viewpoints. Although my vote was decided long ago, I realize that not all have "walked my walk" or taken the journey I have to be the professional I am today. 

The issues, to me, of having a designated Deaf seat on the RID board and a designated IDP/CODA seat are those of CORE VALUES. When Ball State took place, thousands of us weren't there. How do we carry the purpose and intent of our forefathers and mothers forward into our second half-century without some of those core values that were discussed 'back in the day'. As many have stated they have 'fallen into the field' with out knowledge or history or the experience of being raised by our Deaf community. Surely they don't carry that same torch (although MANY are fine interpreters!). Those among us who were born into the community and raised in it, before making the consious decision to join the ranks of professional interpreters carry a unique perspective that cannot be taught in an IEP. It can be told, shared, discussed, debated, related, passed on, but it isn't LIVED.  That 'living' with the experience of Deaf, as a Deaf person or a CODA, is experience we cannot afford to lose or discount. It must be a core value of professionals who serve this field. How do we achieve it?  Sure, all positions of the RID board could be filled by Deaf and Hard of Hearing folks! OR They could all be filled by IDP/CODAs! OR, as has happened when we became more 'corporate' under a previous CEO, our board had neither. If stakeholders are part of our core value (i.e. those who live the  experience of our work), of course these groups must be part of what informs our direction as a professional organization. The only way to guarantee t his perspective is through a designated board position! I see this as a separate issue of representation of all minority groups as the Diversity Council is set to cover that, if their charge is followed. 

Yes, the potential field of candidates to fill this seat is diverse! Not all would represent their constituency in the same way, just as not all Regional reps perform their roles in the same way. Not all will run for the position, just as not all of us have been candidates for board positions. How do we best ensure that our direction and goals are in common with the community we serve without such a partnership? I am grateful for CODA and non CODA colleagues who have been with me in this career. Each provides a perspective I wouldn't otherwise had.

I appreciate the dialogue, though it is my wish that members will not see this as a personal threat or a slighting of another 'group'. It is recognition that CODAs have a place at the table, now and always.

Debbie Matthews Arment, MS, MA

CSC, CI, CT

[Angela Myers]

Debbie,

 

I'm just now reading all of this information and have very mixed opinions about this issue.  I'm grappling!  If you wouldn't mind clarifying your comment at the end of your email for me. You said, "It is recognition that CODAs have a place at the table, now and always."

 

Have CODAs been systematically withheld/barred from serving on the board? I'm struggling because to my knowledge IDP/CODAs have had as much an equal chance to run and be voted onto the board as any other person. Maybe the better question for me to ask is why haven't IDP/CODAs run for the board positions?

 

More insight on this angle would be appreciated.

 

 

Angela Myers,

MS, CI/CT

[Eileen Forestal]

Maria and all, 

I know the feeling of being nervous for fear of backlash or being flamed. Thank you so much for opening up and sharing your thoughts and experiences, especially at the "ReframingRetreat". I think I was the first one who put out the email, saying I voted yes. It was not to politicize the issue or " prejudicize" (yes, I am making that into a verb) this. I was excited about voting and in the Deaf Caucus email group, similar to this listserv discussion group, several of us announced in our group about voting yes. So I thought why not do the same. I was surprised that there were some reactions to the announcements of how we voted. I thought that this is an open forum where we can share our thoughts and actions. 

I am working on being open and listen to others while already we have been burned for speaking up. It ain't easy, especially coming from my Deaf perspective. I voted in favor of Motion E. as Aaron Brace, Bill Moody, Maria Micioni and few others pointed out that CODAs are part of RID's history and part of RID's founding. Over the past decade or longer, I have witnessed marginalization of CODAs, now known as IDPs within RID, directly and indirectly.  I have experienced directly and indirectly marginalization within RID. Back in 1981 at RID convention in Hartford, I was at the convention as I was a RSC holder as Deaf interpreter as well as interpreter educator. One of the leaders of RID (who shall remain nameless here) admonished me in front of another leader and asked why I was there and if I came to "scold" them. I was told not to. Another person, again a leader within RID at that time) told me she didn't understand why Deaf people had to be there and she felt we should not be teaching interpreting.  I was taken aback.  I went to the few who were there at the conference and shared what happened. I was given excellent advise which inspired me to stay on. Times have changed. However, these attitudes are still around.  I was thrilled when more Deaf people started being involved. I am using my experience as an example to indicate what many Deaf persons and CODAs (IDPs) experience. Through the courage of some Deaf persons, it was proposed that a seat be added to the board to assure that our voices are heard. Why is it that we still need to have another committee to make sure Deaf people have opportunities to be 'heard' and to have involvement within the system of RID? Thus, the same is applied to IDPs and their experiences of being marginalized within the system. I am not a CODA, however I can strongly relate to their experiences being ostracized and marginalized. I am a mother of four CODAs and I have seen firsthand and heard from them their experiences of being a CODA. I can only hope I gave them a strength of positive character and pride. CODAs are not Deaf and they are not hearing as they live between the two worlds.  Their perspectives and experiences offer so much to teach everyone. And we need that balance of perspective within the Board and the system.

Why is it that only few Deaf and few IDPs dare to speak up? Why is it that we as Deaf members and IDP need each other? Think about this. 

Bram pointed out that there are opportunities for IDPs to run for office on the board. I agree, yet we need to make sure there always will be an IDP member on board.  Same with having a Deaf member on board.  While I am not so eloquent with written English as some of you in this discussion are, I have faith that many of you will have "Deaf Heart" and support this with a heartfelt YES. 

Eileen Forestal 

Sent from my iPhone

[starr...@aol.com]

Hi Angela,

Yes, CODAS have run for board positions and currently we have CODAs serving (and Deaf too!). It isn't always the case. As I said, we could have an entire Board of CODAs. We could also have a Board of all "new" interpreters who haven't lived the Deaf experience, don't have DEAF-HEART (yet!) that we so earnestly strive for in this organization. We used to KNOW everyone running or knew of each person. With the rapid and expansive growth of the organization, this is no longer possible. The way i see it, the only way to ensure that our CORE VALUES are in the board composition is to have a Deaf member at large (we have it) and a CODA member at large (we need it!).

It isn't about barring anyone or even reactive in nature. It is making sure that these groups are represented. Currently, we have it (yay), but there is nothing to make sure each board, as it changes will have a CODA/IDP there. The percentage of CODAs in this field is smaller each year with more and more non codas joining. That's great, JOIN! At the same time, there is a history and experience that only a CODA can bring. We need everyone.

Angela, thanks for asking. Ihope this is helpful. If you want to contact me offline, feel free.

Debbie Matthews Arment

CSC, CI & CT

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

[Eileen Forestal]

Maria and all, 

I know the feeling of being nervous for fear of backlash or being flamed. Thank you so much for opening up and sharing your thoughts and experiences, especially at the "ReframingRetreat". I think I was the first one who put out the email, saying I voted yes. It was not to politicize the issue or " prejudicize" (yes, I am making that into a verb) this. I was excited about voting and in the Deaf Caucus email group, similar to this listserv discussion group, several of us announced in our group about voting yes. So I thought why not do the same. I was surprised that there were some reactions to the announcements of how we voted. I thought that this is an open forum where we can share our thoughts and actions. 

I am working on being open and listen to others while already we have been burned for speaking up. It ain't easy, especially coming from my Deaf perspective. I voted in favor of Motion E. as Aaron Brace, Bill Moody, Maria Micioni and few others pointed out that CODAs are part of RID's history and part of RID's founding. Over the past decade or longer, I have witnessed marginalization of CODAs, now known as IDPs within RID, directly and indirectly.  I have experienced directly and indirectly marginalization within RID. Back in 1981 at RID convention in Hartford, I was at the convention as I was a RSC holder as Deaf interpreter as well as interpreter educator. One of the leaders of RID (who shall remain nameless here) admonished me in front of another leader and asked why I was there and if I came to "scold" them. I was told not to. Another person, again a leader within RID at that time) told me she didn't understand why Deaf people had to be there and she felt we should not be teaching interpreting.  I was taken aback.  I went to the few who were there at the conference and shared what happened. I was given excellent advise which inspired me to stay on. Times have changed. However, these attitudes are still around.  I was thrilled when more Deaf people started being involved. I am using my experience as an example to indicate what many Deaf persons and CODAs (IDPs) experience. Through the courage of some Deaf persons, it was proposed that a seat be added to the board to assure that our voices are heard. Why is it that we still need to have another committee to make sure Deaf people have opportunities to be 'heard' and to have involvement within the system of RID? Thus, the same is applied to IDPs and their experiences of being marginalized within the system. I am not a CODA, however I can strongly relate to their experiences being ostracized and marginalized. I am a mother of four CODAs and I have seen firsthand and heard from them their experiences of being a CODA. I can only hope I gave them a strength of positive character and pride. CODAs are not Deaf and they are not hearing as they live between the two worlds.  Their perspectives and experiences offer so much to teach everyone. And we need that balance of perspective within the Board and the system.

Why is it that only few Deaf and few IDPs dare to speak up? Why is it that we as Deaf members and IDP need each other? Think about this. 

Bram pointed out that there are opportunities for IDPs to run for office on the board. I agree, yet we need to make sure there always will be an IDP member on board.  Same with having a Deaf member on board.  While I am not so eloquent with written English as some of you in this discussion are, I have faith that many of you will have "Deaf Heart" and support this with a heartfelt YES. 

Eileen Forestal 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Maria Micioni <mmm...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Angela Myers]

Thank you for the clarification! I have not voted yet. I'm still weighing the pros/cons and ramifications. I'm thankful for all the views on this thread.

 

Angela

[Rachel Nekoukar]

I, too, haven't posted very much to this board, (I often feel awestruck by the colleagues on here, and, usually, all of you say what I feel, but much more eloquently!). That said, I do feel the need to share some opinions right now. Please pardon any typos, as I'm typing on my phone. As a mom of two small kids, I don't have a lot of time to sit at the computer - and rarely do I feel so passionate and moved as I do right now, in this moment, to add to this conversation. 

I am not a CODA.  I came to this field through the community, though. I learned ASL while in college in DC. Took classes at Gally and spent Saturday afternoons sitting in the cafeteria, talking to any Deaf person who would talk to me. I was desperate to learn the language from them and be accepted into this community. I became a teacher of the deaf, and became friends with Deaf folks. This led to them  asking me to interpret for them periodically. I didn't even know "interpreter" was a profession!  I, now, also teach at a local interpreting program, and I have seen at least four graduating classes go by. I am, more and more, disheartened at what I see coming through our doors. There are still CODA's coming through, and folks like me. But over the last few years, I have seen a rise in people who have taken ASL, levels 1-5, who now feel they have "earned" a place in an ITP.  And they go through an ITP in LIEU of spending time in the community. It is sad. (Don't get me wrong - we do have students who come through, who DO come from the community and DO have a DEAF-HEART.). But the increase of people coming to our field solely as a profession and a job has jumped tremendously over the last few years and is causing a great imbalance. Imbalance in the Deaf community (I had heard this complaint, more and more from my Deaf friends - terps are always in a hurry to get to their next job, they don't want to talk to the Deaf folks they are working with, and are less interested in getting to know them as a person (aside from doing the "dutiful" "language assessment" they are taught to do in their ITP's.). 

This imbalance can be seen in RID's numbers. It has caused a paradigm shift in our organization. Pardon me if I am getting too political, but this all reeks to me of (now not white privilege), but hearing, majority, mainstream culture privilege. CODA's have been (for a long time) outcasts from the hearing, majority group (of interpreters). They have been systematically disenfranchised. This seat, on the board, to me, represents a way of "re-enfranchising" them. My CODA friends tell me of the ostracism they faced growing up. They don't fit anywhere but with themselves - and often felt alone in this as a child.).  The CODA's I know have faced discrimination from other non-CODA terps. I have heard it many times - "just because s/he's a CODA doesn't mean..."). But it does mean... A LOT. Without them, we would not be where we are today. The Deaf community was the gatekeeper for them. We, now, more than ever, as we see power being stripped from the Deaf folks we work with and handed over to interpreters, need them to guide us. Without a strong CODA voice or representation on the board, our future looks dim. As it did without a Deaf voice. That is why we needed to create a special seat on the board. 

Yes, it is true, a CODA could run for any position on the board, at any time. But they (largely) don't. And not today. It's too scary. They will be blamed by many (not all) for trying to take over, or making things "too Deaf." (What?!?!  But these are all things I've heard people say.). There will be too much pushback. So by creating a special position on the board, we will be sure to have two voices on the board that are truly "of the community" (and, yes, Bram, that community is diverse, but that doesn't lessen the value in assuring a voice for those who otherwise might not feel welcome to SAFELY participate in discussions that shape the future of our profession.)

So I guess there's no need to announce how I voted (though I don't see anything wrong with doing so!) 

Thank you for 'listening.'

Humbly yours,

Rachel Nekoukar

Sent from my iPhone

[Angela Myers]

Here's a thought for those who would be willing to respond to it.  Rather than having a IDP/CODA person on the board by virture of only the fact that he/she is an IDP/CODA, why can't the position be a direct representative from the CODA organization?  (Many of the local chapters have NAD representatives sit on their boards.) This type of representation might better serve to represent the diversity within te larger sect of IDP/CODAs.  This person would also already have a structured and direct link to the larger sect that could be used as a resource and an avenue of input during times of discussions. This connection might also serve to energize both organizations as they work in collobrative projects.

 

Was this option ever discussed by RID?

 

Angela Myers 

[Dan Parvaz]

Angela's suggestion has wings,methinks. There's no reason why there shouldn't be ex officio positions on the RID board from CODA, NAD, NAOBI, Mano a Mano, etc... either the Presidents or (more likely) their designees. 

As for identity politics setting the composition of the elected RID Board... well, I think I tipped my hand with the phrase "identity politics". We should do all that we can to honor our Foremothers (Deaf and CODA), and do all that we can to encourage all qualified people from all backgrounds to serve our field. As an organization, we are getting some basic technical things wrong and in danger of fumbling our original purpose, i.e. as a registry. Those should be our focus, not to find people who can wrap themselves in Paddy Ladd (or some of his American interpreters, pun intended).

-Dan.

[Stephanie Feyne]

Angela's suggestion is different than the motion at hand and while I appreciate offering new ideas, I'm going to take a moderator's prerogative and ask that any further discussion of a new or replacement proposal could be under a separate heading. Just so we don't get confused:)

We have a motion that needs to be voted on now. It has a deadline of Feb 15. 

Also, even though I think that ex officio positions would be great and probably are needed - hence a new topic heading - IDP is not an organization outside RID, it's within. Just like Deaf Caucus. 

Thanks,

Stephanie

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear NIDG,

First let me thank everyone for their postings and insights. I do not
wish to restate the well-articulated perspectives and justifications
for anyone's position on this important issue, so I will add some
points that may be beneficial to the discussion.

At a recent (Nov. 2012) local RID conference Trudy Scuggs talked about
Deaf Disempowerment and Today’s Interpreter (http://
www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/).
Before I share my thoughts, I'd like to quote something she said that
best expresses where I am coming from.

"I believe that the best way to become bona fide allies is to embrace
difficult ideas, opinions and, yes, facts. At the end of the day,
we’re all in this together."

Please read/view her presentation. Her experiences are indicative of
things that currently happen every day.
Because I am an "in-between" (Thank you, Amy Williamson) person
(coda), I perceive my comments to be direct and honest (something
highly valued in the culture I grew up in.) If my style or directness
is considerate inappropriate, please remember that these are cultural
differences and not personal attacks.
Some of the NIDG postings illustrate (to me) why an IDP needs to be on
the Board. Some examples from the conversations are offered here:

1) The public sharing of voting preference was an issue for some. I
believe that this demonstrates (again) one of the cultural differences
between Deaf and hearing communities--individualism vs. collectivism.
To equate the right of privacy of vote in American society works
insofar as no one is compelled to disclose their political
affiliations. What is striking to me is that those citizens who
disclose their votes are willingly making a political statement by
being overt about societal issues... they are passionate and proud
enough to state their truths. In my 65+ years of experience, I have
interacted with people from different social classes, different
ethnicities, and different localities. The people I have interacted
with that do not divulge their vote is often because they a) are
afraid of backlash, b) present their "public self" as supporting a
different view from their "private self", or c) have some other
personal reason. I wonder if this is true for some of our members.

2) When I read the Diversity Council response to this motion, I
checked to see the composition of this group. I noted that the
members represent ethnic and sexual orientation diversity. Being a
member of an ethic minority myself, I could see myself wanting to have
a person like me having a permanent seat on the Board of an
organization. That may be something we need to consider or at least
discuss in depth as a separate issue.

3) Regarding the variability of codas (the capital letters refer to
the organization CODA, not people with Deaf parents), I would like to
share that the experience of meeting with other codas is like no
other. It's where the "in-between" is its own entity. Codas who come
from all types of backgrounds and communication preferences find out
they share much more than they ever imagined. Those codas who work
with Deaf people, like interpreters, have even more in common. Codas
who are certified are a self-selected group of bilingual and
bicultural people who are able to see both Deaf and hearing
perspectives. I believe that this group brings a consistent "coda
voice" long absent from our organization.

4) The reason we are in this predicament in the first place is because
we now have to legislate what should be current practice. The Deaf
Caucus and IDP were created to recognize the unique and essential role
they play in this profession. I believe that if RID Boards consulted
these groups for their view on issues impacting our field frequently
enough and seriously sought to include their cultural concerns, we may
not need to have special seats on the Board. Clearly, the failure of
our Boards to do this has motivated a demand for Deaf and IDP
representation. I personally wish that this motion was not necessary,
BUT IT IS! Just think about all the legislation that had to be
enacted because the privileged didn't feel compelled to do the right
thing regarding all those groups that are now "specially protected"
under the law. Codas and Deaf people serve to remind of us of the
"right" things.

5) I have taught interpreting to thousands of people over the years. I
can attest to the fact that many interpreters (student, novice,
experienced, and certified) are surprised to find that some of their
interpreting decisions are oppressive or they do not have enough
familiarity with Deaf people to fully understand culturally dense
signed texts that they interpret into English. Message equivalence is
seriously impacted. Many now seek out teams who are codas or Deaf
interpreters in order to complement their "hearing" solutions to
interpreting decisions.

6) Trudy also talks about "making money from my language." She freely
admits that Deaf and hearing people are doing this, including her.
However, there is (and should be) respect for the language and
Community that uses it, involvement in the community's quest for
social justice, and continued pursuit of linguistic and cultural
development that comes with this chosen profession.

Finally, in my view there is a need for a reality check. Admittedly,
there are deaf people who are not culturally Deaf that we serve. The
problem is that we haven't found reliable ways to identify these
consumers. The fact is that the majority of working interpreters are
not even close to being bilingual. Bilingual interpreters can
successfully communicate with all varieties of signing, but the jobs
that require ASL proficiency are assigned (and accepted) primarily by
availability, setting, and cost. We need to admit, at least to
ourselves, that the job market and laws mandating services have
allowed people to have work, regardless of competence or quality.
Although "outing" ourselves to the world would be chaotic to say the
least, we should stop acting as if this were not so. As an
organization, we need language models and formative cultural
experiences to guide us as we move forward.

Motion E should have been a no-brainer! Seeing this response is
disheartening. I still have not heard an argument against it that
points to the negative consequences other than the fear of opening a
can of worms. I suppose the "up side" of all this dialogue is
precisely to (re)examine who we are and what we believe. If the vision
of RID is to promote interpreting as a business above all human
aspects of this work, we need to own that. Those of us who love the
work and the community can establish a new vision from the model we
came from and still cherish.

betty colonomos

[Diana MacDougall]

Nice suggestion. I think it is something to toss around. At least to include it in the overall discussions before a final decision is made. 

Eileen Forrestal: you write in a very moving way. Thank you for your full explanation of where you are coming from. Nobody has said it better since. We all have histories and backgrounds as to what makes us who we are today and how we think today. I fully understand your perspective on why an IDP should have a spot within RID. My views are not different from yours on this matter. 

Many have made comments about my question on why people were stating how they voted publicly. I get that this is definitely a Cultural perspective. I suppose growing up in a mainstream (hearing) American culture that is largely ego-centric, I would value my independence and privacy. My values showed through here. I understand how strongly a collective culture would share their perspectives, even in how they voted. Certainly there was no disrespect intended with my comments. 

We all must live by our values and convictions; sometimes they will come into conflict. Being aware of these different perspectives and being able to discuss them is what brings people from different walks of life together. That's why I like this discussion group. We don't have to agree, but we sure as hell learn a whole lot from them! And I hope we also gain mutual respect in the process, as well. 

Respectfully (and still choosing to keep my vote private),

Diana Mac

[Aaron Brace]

Several posters, including Dan, appear to have based their comments on the assumption that the workings of RID are directly analagous to democratic politics.  I disagree.  RID (at least in theory) exists specifically to foster excellent interpreting services for Deaf and hard of hearing people.  Their interests count more than ours, unless, as Betty suggested, we get real and admit that this is primarily an economic endeavor for us.  Identity politics are completely appropriate when the identity in question is, or is embedded in, that of the people we all claim to know and serve.

Deaf people and IDPs are trying to tell us that we still, far too often, err when it comes to seeing and upholding the autonomy and dignity of Deaf people in the course of our practice and in our in our presence in their lives.  Worse, we deny that such is even the case.  At a forum recently in the San Francisco Bay Area, several Deaf people were gracious enough to form a panel to share the challenges they often face when working with interpreters.  A number of colleagues shared with me afterward that they were fuming through the whole process, insisting that they should have been allowed to "explain" each concern raised by the panelists.  It didn't even occur to them to just sit, listen, and engage in self-reflection about their own behaviors that fit the profiles being shared.

I raise this because it exemplifies, albeit in extreme form, the defensiveness we non-coda interpreters are prone to at the slightest suggestion that we've overlooked something that's fundamentally important to Deaf or hard of hearing people.  While I daresay that every IDP also puts her foot in it from time to time, their experiences of growing up in the language and/or culture(s?) of the people we all serve give them key insights into how we might first identify, understand, and eventually overcome that defensiveness.  I don't want to leave it to chance, hoping that IDPs will run for and win general seats on the Board.  I want to know those insights will always be at the table, however diverse they might be, given that they'll always represent the autonomy and dignity I mentioned above, in ways that we non-codas have proven we cannot do, at least not consistently.

Lastly, I have to ask Dan what he has seen in the various arguments in favor of the motion that would lead him to sum them up so dismissively: "...people who can wrap themselves in Paddy Ladd".  I find that a disappointing glib bit of rhetoric.

Cheers,

Aaron

[Aaron Brace]

Several posters, including Dan, appear to have based their comments on the assumption that the workings of RID are directly analagous to democratic politics.  I disagree.  RID (at least in theory) exists specifically to foster excellent interpreting services for Deaf and hard of hearing people.  Their interests count more than ours, unless, as Betty suggested, we get real and admit that this is primarily an economic endeavor for us.  Identity politics are completely appropriate when the identity in question is, or is embedded in, that of the people we all claim to know and serve.

Deaf people and IDPs are trying to tell us that we still, far too often, err when it comes to seeing and upholding the autonomy and dignity of Deaf people in the course of our practice and in our presence in their lives.  Worse, we deny that such is even the case.  At a forum recently in the San Francisco Bay Area, several Deaf people were gracious enough to form a panel to share the challenges they often face when working with interpreters.  A number of colleagues shared with me afterward that they were fuming through the whole process, insisting that they should have been allowed to "explain" each concern raised by the panelists.  It didn't even occur to them to just sit, listen, and engage in self-reflection about their own behaviors that fit the profiles being shared.

I raise this because it exemplifies, albeit in extreme form, the defensiveness we non-coda interpreters are prone to at the slightest suggestion that we've overlooked something that's fundamentally important to Deaf or hard of hearing people.  While I daresay that every IDP also puts her foot in it from time to time, their experiences of growing up in the language and/or culture(s?) of the people we all serve give them key insights into how we might first identify, understand, and eventually overcome that defensiveness.  I don't want to leave it to chance, hoping that IDPs will run for and win general seats on the Board.  I want to know those insights will always be at the table, however diverse they might be, given that they'll always represent the autonomy and dignity I mentioned above, in ways that we non-codas have proven we cannot do, at least not consistently.

Lastly, I have to ask Dan what he has seen in the various arguments in favor of the motion that would lead him to sum them up so dismissively: "...people who can wrap themselves in Paddy Ladd".  I find that a disappointingly glib bit of rhetoric.

Cheers,

Aaron

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dan Parvaz <dpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Cokely, Dennis]

Well said Aaron!!! I completely agree.

Need I remind everyone that at the RID Conference in San Francisco when the IDP hosted the first Deaf Community Forum, the RID Board declared that the only way that IDP could hold it at the RID Conference venue was if Deaf people and others from the Bay area paid a one day conference registration rate to attend!! IDP wisely chose another venue for San Francisco ( but the fact that IDP and Deaf people were not welcomed at "the big house" is indeed telling). While the timing/scheduling of the Community forum in Philadelphia  was clearly an improvement (the venue was the RID conference venue and those attending did NOT have to pay a one day registration fee and nothing was scheduled at the same time), we took two giant steps backwards at the Atlanta conference (numerous workshops/presentations were scheduled at the same time as the Community forum and the scheduled time was not the most conducive for local community members!!!). 

When the wilingness to engage  the Community in dialogue about our work and their circumstance is so easily dismissed, it is clear we definitely need to have a coda presence on the Board. I have tried to argue precisely this on StreetLeverage (http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/01/vanquished-native-voices-—-a-sign-language-interpreting-crisis/).

I certainly would urge us (i.e. RID members) to consider establishing a formal advisory board comprised of representatives from various organizations serving and working with Deaf people; but that is not the same thing as a governing/administrative Board with a coda presence on it. 

What happens when we leave representation to chance can clearly be seen in the recent appointment of the new Senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott. He will be the only African American Senator currently serving in the Senate and the only African American GOP Senator since 1979. And since the first African American served in 1870, Scott is only the seventh. While not directly analogous (as Aaron rightly points out), this does illustrate what happens when we leave such things to chance. The RID  Board of Directors should not, I would argue, be a completely untethered board; it must rest, I would suggest, on the dual anchors of a Deaf member and an IDP member. At the present time we have only one anchor and, as any sailor know, a single anchor most often leaves one twisting in the wind.

I would also suggest, as Aaron does, that we (the vast majority of RID members who have come to the community, culture, language and people later in life) should not be so easily and quickly dismissive of those who have grown up with the community, culture, language and people. If we are trying in this forum to have reasoned, thoughtful discussion, sarcasm and dismissiveness have no place – let us strive to advance reasoned arguments and thoughts.

dennis

Dennis Cokely
Director, American Sign Language Program
Director, World Languages Center
Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures

Northeastern University
617 373-8425 
857 366 4204 [VP]

From: Aaron Brace <aaronb...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "NI...@googlegroups.com" <NI...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:13 PM
To: "NI...@googlegroups.com" <NI...@googlegroups.com>

[Gina Gonzalez]

Hello everyone,

 

I am a Coda, Chicana, Lesbian, and I can attest, albeit from my own limited personal experiences, that being a member of a minority hearing group does NOT equate to living a "deaf-like life experience" as the Diversity Council would like us to believe. I choose to call myself a Chicana because like a Coda who lives between the spaces, a Chicano resides between the hyphen in Mexican-American; I am neither from here, nor there. I grappled between being a part of a white-dominated society and maintining the Latino culture as a US-born child of Mexican descendents, however I enjoyed freedom of culture and language expression much more as a Chicana than I did as a Coda. Granted, I grew up in a region that is predominately Hispano, nevertheless the parallel that the council draws is misleading. As a lesbian, I had the option of denying being gay to avoid discrimination and/or persecution. I did not have the option of denying my mother's deafness nor did she have the option of denying it, especially not living in the projects where everyone knew eachother's "business". My mother's deaf voice could be heard from one end of the projects to the other when she called out for me...yeah no— no, hiding from that.

 

My Hispano peers after listening/watching my mother scold us would often ask me if my mother was retarded. My mother was publicly scolding us for our mischief just like any Latina mother did, but the perception of her cognitive abilities was quite distinct from other hearing Latina mothers.  

 

 

There may be some shared experiences with regard to culture and language oppression between Hispanos/Latinos and d/Deaf people, but in terms of  life experiences, the road undoubtedly forks. I recall a panel discussion involving Hispano/Latino interpreters and Deaf interpreters during the week-long interpreter training in Big Spring, Texas (Eileen, I believe you were there too). The panel discussion was prompted by mounting tension among the Trilingual and Deaf participants. Communication policy  in common areas was not observed and the interaction between the two groups was quickly diminishing.  If the experiences of hearing minorities such as non-coda Latino interpreters is "deaf-like" as the Diversity Council claims, a panel discussion to address the rapidly growing rip between the two groups would not have been necessary.

 

At some point in the beginning of the discussion, one Deaf participant pointed out that "this was nothing new", for us to drop it because we would never accomplish a "love-fest" between hearing and deaf interpreters no matter how much or how hard we tried.  She added that she had been to countless conferences, workshops, trainings, and the wedge between the hearing and deaf was an inevitable reality. Admittedly, her message stung me, but I could hardly deny the truth in her message.

 

However, as a result of sharing and embracing our differences as well as our limited similarities, the week ended in a "love-fest" indeed. I believe it was the direct result of openly and honestly acknowledging our differences rather than pretending we were more alike than different. Ironically, one shared experience expressed during the panel discussion related to the substandard treatment by RID of deaf interpreters and latino interpreters compared to their non-latino/non-coda hearing counterparts.

  

Who initiated this panel discussion? Who sheparded the trilingual interpreters and the deaf interpreters into this painful yet triumphant discussion? A Coda and an aspiring deaf interpreter...Why? Because to not address it hurt more, and worse yet, it wouldn't heal us. But mostly, because we knew that nothing creates a wedge more than hearing people professing thier care for the culture and language, but avoiding the acknowledgment of their hearing privilege.

 

At the very least, creating an IDP at large position is a gesture of respect for the roots from which this profession stems from, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, a necessity for facilitating a consensus-oriented approach that is driven by the core values that molded the profession and to add integrity to the board. I simply do not see any valid justification for voting against it, except that which a mind riddled with fear can conjure.

 

There is the question of tokenism. I would dare say that an organization without a firm commitment to the core values that gave it life by ensuring a space for Codas and Deaf people is much more susceptible to it, evidenced by TSID and the now defunct Austin Interpreters for the Deaf (AID), than one that operates on its commitment.

 

Avoiding tokenism starts with a firm commitment to promoting the core values i.e. creation of Deaf and IDP members at large. Announce it; put it in writing. Creating a sense of ownership is difficult if recruitment of new board members is based on pure representation of a specific group in the constituency. No board member wants to fill a quota. No one should be required to — in fact, no one is able to represent an entire subsection of the population. Board members contribute according to their skills and knowledge. The focus should be on the board as a diverse creature that operates on the core values that bring meaning to the organization, not on individual representation. 

 

 I want to thank everyone who has posted, especially those who expressed an opposing view; for without it, we do not know where we stand.

 

- Gina Gonzalez

Gg

[Dan Parvaz]

What I said sounds dismissive because I was being dismissive. I am not particularly impressed with interpreters falling all over themselves to show how "allied" they are, with the fashionable deference to one side of our clientele. I see it entirely too often. Phrases like "Deaf-heart" are easy to spoon around -- I can hardly wait for the first election when candidates go about proving whose heart is "Deafer" -- real competence as an interpreter is considerably more difficult to achieve, as we all realize. 

It seems to me that we would be better allies if we went about the hard business of mastering our craft and finding a way to capture that in some combination of education, experience and  credential ... far more so than this rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic. The motion as it stands smacks of tokenism, and neither Deaf people nor IDPs/codas deserve to be thus damned; there is neither honor nor dignity in this. 

I agree that we need to honor the Deaf/coda side of our profession, but I feel it needs to happen at a deeper level than this.

Still grumpy,

-Dan.

[Bill Moody]

Oh, my goodness, Dan!  Put aside that grumpy, put aside your possibly false interpretation of Paddy’s Deafhood, or other interpretations of Deafhood or Deaf Heart or Deaf Gain, or any other catchphrase that is trying to pin down the essences Deaf culture and experience, and…  calm down!

 

Nobody is forgetting our hearing clients, no, not for a minute.  We all know we are the ones in the middle, serving both Deaf and hearing.  We are only there to help each client understand the other and get his/her goals met, as much as possible.  But Rachel’s eloquent description of the young interpreters in ITPs feeling that a few years of classes and a degree are all that is necessary to be a good interpreter is very accurate… and it should give us non-codas pause.  Fresh IPT grads who jump into high level interpreting situations certainly makes me cringe, but quite a few feel the degree is all they need.

 

Ask the best spoken language interpreters, most of them who actually grew up with both their A and B languages, if it is possible to be an exemplary interpreter without spending a great deal of time with both cultures and both groups.  You seem to be focusing on skill building, and that’s crucial, but it is not completely accomplished in classes, and from posts on other topics, we all know you know that!

 

If we are not open to really trying to understand how native signers view the world, then we can’t do much more than the best machine translations.  That won’t get either of our client groups what they want or need – understanding each other as much as possible through a third party who understands both.  Nobody is trying to prove whose heart is ‘Deafer’, we are simply trying to make sure we accumulate the experiences to ensure we understand both cultures as thoroughly as possible.  Those experiences used to be built into our entrance into the Deaf community and informal authorization as a trusted interpreter and ‘member’ of the community.  If those experiences are not common today, then we need to build them into our education and association as specifically as possible.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Parvaz
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:31 PM
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Re: IDP on RID Board Referendum

 

What I said sounds dismissive because I was being dismissive. I am not particularly impressed with interpreters falling all over themselves to show how "allied" they are, with the fashionable deference to one side of our clientele. I see it entirely too often. Phrases like "Deaf-heart" are easy to spoon around -- I can hardly wait for the first election when candidates go about proving whose heart is "Deafer" -- real competence as an interpreter is considerably more difficult to achieve, as we all realize. 

[Diana MacDougall]

To Gina Gonzalez: 

Wow. That's all I can say. And thank you. 

Diana Mac

[Aaron Brace]

Oh, you've gone way beyond 'grumpy', Dan.  Am I correct in inferring that you ascribe a falseness to my arguments?  I find it difficult to take terms like "fashionable" and "falling all over themselves" any other way.  They take the discussion far out of the realm of the collegial.  I can but protest and utterly reject such an implication.  Impressing you was never my aim.

"Honor" is a funny word. It sounds so nice and respectful, until you realize that "honorary" degrees don't have any real value, and that people are "honored" with gold watches on their way out the door.  We don't need just to "honor" Deaf people and codas, we need their guidance on every issue facing us in our practice and in our association.  Designated member at large seats may, indeed, not be the ideal way to ensure that guidance always has its rightful place, but let's not hold the good hostage to the perfect, because the perfect will never come.  Shall we avoid the issue until that "deeper level" you mention manifests itself to everyone's satisfaction?  Good luck with that.

Regards,

Aaron

[Dan Parvaz]

Sigh.

No, Aaron, I don't think you're a phony. If you don't know how highly   I regard  both you and your opinion (and always have), then I've clearly done something wrong., and for that I'm truly sorry.

My argument is that the proposal is a superficial fix. It has the appearance  of doing something -- look, we've given Them a couple of votes on the Board! -- while still keeping Them as a  "them". In that sense , the effect is to invoke the exterior trappings of Deafhood (at least as I read it) without embracing its spirit. Hence my stand against the  motion.

If it turns out I'm wrong, and this ushers in a new culture of respect that returns us to our Deaf  roots,, fixes our certification mess, and loosens RID's death embrace on the VRS corporations... well, I'll take all the I-told-you-so you can dish out. And I'll buy you  beer. Hell, I'll buy you a beer anyway.

-Dan.

[Angela Myers]

So... if one has to really boil this down, I'm getting the sense that the struggle for some of us may be our interpretation of whether this decision is a political statement of change OR an organizational change of state.

 

Angela Myers

[Betty Colonomos]

Mea Culpa! Sorry Trudy for the misspelling of your last name. Typing
is not my strength and spell check doesn't get names.

Have a wonderful Holiday.

On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, Betty Colonomos <visit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear NIDG,
>
> First let me thank everyone for their postings and insights.  I do not
> wish to restate the well-articulated perspectives and justifications
> for anyone's position on this important issue, so I will add some
> points that may be beneficial to the discussion.
>
> At a recent (Nov. 2012) local RID conference Trudy Scuggs talked about

> Deaf Disempowerment and Today’s Interpreter (http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpr...).

[Betty Colonomos]

Thank you, Bill, for your ever-present wisdom and humanity. And thank
you Dan, for being so honest about your feelings. I'm sure you are not
alone in your perspective, but you are willing to stimulate our
reasoning amidst our emotions to bring about this long overdue
discussion. Those who "talk the talk" (ally, Deaf heart, etc.) far
outnumber those who "walk the walk". It is frustrating and
disheartening.

The word "dismissive" has been rattling around in my brain since Dan's
post and it brings forth something about cultural differences that I
have witnessed and experienced. Some Deaf people feel the need to
preface their comments with disclaimers about their intent (e.g. I
have been labeled "an angry Deaf person", etc.) I think these negative
attributions are another way Deaf people are dismissed. Codas are
often portrayed as angry, rude, and overly emotional when they express
their views around Deaf people, interpreters, and privilege...even if
they are not displaying elevated affect.

To share a personal (and uncomfortable) example...I have noticed that
after a couple of postings that have the "flavor" of my Deaf, Jewish,
and New York City background, no responses came (except for Aaron...
thank you for acknowledging my post!) Are my observations and words
too hard to swallow? Are they not worthy of your consideration? Am I
being dismissed?

A few years ago an African American interpreter who co-taught a
workshop with me was signing a narrative about an experience with a
friend. When I asked the participants to analyze the goal and affect
of the text, 15 out of the group of 20 confidently claimed that the
signer was angry and that the anger was moderate to high in degree.
They insisted that her face showed negative emotions when, in fact,
the signer was only conveying a dialogue between two black females.
Numerous times I have observed expressive Latina and Latino colleagues
dismissed as somehow less intellectual or not exercising enough "self-
control" because of their culturally appropriate gestures and
intonation. Unfamiliarity and racism are often the root of these
characterizations. Are we listening to what Interpreters of Color are
telling us?

When members of ethnic and racial groups feel compelled to create
their own interpreter organizations in order to feel welcome,
comfortable, and heard we need to ask ourselves how we can describe
our work as mediating communication between linguistically and
culturally different people.

This whole debate about Motion E has indeed opened a can of
worms...the kind of worms that fertilize and foster growth. Worms may
be "icky" but they are vital to our ecosystem.

Voting for Motion E is also vital to the growth and health of our
field. Let us begin there and continue to find ways to hear/see the
many cultural lessons we need to learn.

Betty Colonomos

On Dec 20, 10:50 pm, "Bill Moody" <billmo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Oh, my goodness, Dan!  Put aside that grumpy, put aside your possibly false
> interpretation of Paddy's Deafhood, or other interpretations of Deafhood or
> Deaf Heart or Deaf Gain, or any other catchphrase that is trying to pin down

> the essences Deaf culture and experience, and.  calm down!

>
> Nobody is forgetting our hearing clients, no, not for a minute.  We all know
> we are the ones in the middle, serving both Deaf and hearing.  We are only
> there to help each client understand the other and get his/her goals met, as
> much as possible.  But Rachel's eloquent description of the young
> interpreters in ITPs feeling that a few years of classes and a degree are

> all that is necessary to be a good interpreter is very accurate. and it

> should give us non-codas pause.  Fresh IPT grads who jump into high level
> interpreting situations certainly makes me cringe, but quite a few feel the
> degree is all they need.
>
> Ask the best spoken language interpreters, most of them who actually grew up
> with both their A and B languages, if it is possible to be an exemplary
> interpreter without spending a great deal of time with both cultures and
> both groups.  You seem to be focusing on skill building, and that's crucial,
> but it is not completely accomplished in classes, and from posts on other
> topics, we all know you know that!
>
> If we are not open to really trying to understand how native signers view
> the world, then we can't do much more than the best machine translations.

> That won't get either of our client groups what they want or need -

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Brace <aaronbrace...@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dan Parvaz <dpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Angela's suggestion has wings,methinks. There's no reason why there
> shouldn't be ex officio positions on the RID board from CODA, NAD, NAOBI,
> Mano a Mano, etc... either the Presidents or (more likely) their designees.
>
> As for identity politics setting the composition of the elected RID Board...
> well, I think I tipped my hand with the phrase "identity politics". We
> should do all that we can to honor our Foremothers (Deaf and CODA), and do
> all that we can to encourage all qualified people from all backgrounds to
> serve our field. As an organization, we are getting some basic technical
> things wrong and in danger of fumbling our original purpose, i.e. as a
> registry. Those should be our focus, not to find people who can wrap
> themselves in Paddy Ladd (or some of his American interpreters, pun
> intended).
>
> -Dan.
>

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Angela Myers <angmye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a thought for those who would be willing to respond to it.  Rather
> than having a IDP/CODA person on the board by virture of only the fact that
> he/she is an IDP/CODA, why can't the position be a direct representative
> from the CODA organization?  (Many of the local chapters have NAD
> representatives sit on their boards.) This type of representation might
> better serve to represent the diversity within te larger sect of IDP/CODAs.
> This person would also already have a structured and direct link to the
> larger sect that could be used as a resource and an avenue of input during
> times of discussions. This connection might also serve to energize both
> organizations as they work in collobrative projects.
>
> Was this option ever discussed by RID?
>
> Angela Myers
>

> On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:39 AM, "Angela Myers" <angmye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the clarification! I have not voted yet. I'm still weighing
> the pros/cons and ramifications. I'm thankful for all the views on this
> thread.
>
> Angela
>

> <http://idp-rid.org/>  [4]

>
> >>>>> Thank you for your valued support and consideration on this
> >>>>> referendum.
>
> >>>>> Kelly Decker
> >>>>> IDP Region I Representative
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

> >>>> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en[5].
> >>>> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> >>>> [6].
>
> >>>> Links:
> >>>> ------
> >>>> [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U
> >>>> [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc
> >>>> [3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8
> >>>> [4]http://idp-rid.org/
> >>>> [5]http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en
> >>>> [6]https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.>>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.>>> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.

> >>> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.>> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.>> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.

> >> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
>
> > Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.

> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.

> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.

> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:NIDG%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Tyrone Giordano]

Hi, all--

I've been following this thread with great interest, and thought to chime in here.

I am Deaf, and have been using interpreters since 8th grade.

Let me state that I think that "affirmative action" has had (and still has) its uses, and I can see that applying this concept via a "token" position is much needed in the RID governing body. The multiple perspectives raised in this discussion alone prove that. Also, there is a growing body of Deaf interpreters and hearing interpreters who see themselves as "allied" with the needs and interests of the community they purport to serve, but the number of people who actively engage the community throughout their lives remains small. These individuals embody experiences that provide a perspective that nobody else can. That said, I'm not even sure one position for these individuals is enough, unless the position effectively serves a functional role as liaison with the Deaf/IDP communities.

I echo Dan's (Parvaz) fears about tokenism, and also fear that along with the well-intentioned creation of this "guaranteed" representative spot on the board, there is the danger of a less-than-savory character taking the spot when few others are so motivated. I also echo Dan's sentiments about self-proclaimed "allies," since I am of the belief that nobody can call themselves an ally, they can only act as such. It's only self-serving to call yourself an "ally," to wear it as a badge, because you will at some point have the unintended consequence of disenfranchising one or several of us. These fears alone do not dismiss the very real need for the IDP (and Deaf!) position on the board, especially seeing that it feels as if the RID is a body completely separate from the Deaf community. I am positive that I am not the only one that feels this way.

That this feeling exists is unfortunate, for without the Deaf community, the RID would cease to be. I think the RID should take steps to empower deaf consumers as much as possible, especially in light of continual (conscious and unconscious) abuses inflicted upon Deaf consumers by RID-certified interpreters. I could go on and talk about interpreters who aren't certified because they're that good, but their ethics are severely lacking. The Deaf perspective is sorely needed in this organization that leads the profession. I only recently learned things like being able to choose the interpreter I wanted, or dismissing/reporting those I was less than satisfied with, but I still fear reprisals or backlash for doing so. I also learned that many interpreters are very much hungry for input from their Deaf consumers, especially since many consumers are unaware of their power, and/or are denied opportunities to exercise it. I want workshops for Deaf consumers on how to work with interpreters, not just workshops for interpreters on how to work with Deaf consumers. Why should interpreters have all the enlightenment, awareness, and power in the equation?

During my college studies, I used ratemyprofessors.com to select my teachers, and it was most empowering to me as a discerning consumer of higher education. I wanted to be able to make the same informed choices for my interpreters, and along came inmylingo.com, and I was supremely excited at this being the very tool I could use to call out the bad behavior of many interpreters. This endeavor received such an outcry from interpreters expressing fears that they would be subject to negative reviews and might lose their jobs. I suspect that the loudest protesters have nothing but contempt for the power of the community they claim they are in service to. If someone sends you a scathing review, it should be seen as a blessing and opportunity to improve, because too often Deaf consumers are too willing to play "nice" and mask the truth to avoid creating any friction. After all, they ARE dependent on interpreters. And do interpreters acknowledge this? I think this is simply not the case for many in your profession, no matter what lip service they pay to the idea. I fear this will continue to be the case even when the supply of interpreters outstrips demand.

All that said, until the balance of power between Deaf people and interpreters is truly balanced, I am all for an "inside" route into the board of RID, if only to guarantee that our community's input is heard and at least considered.

-Tyrone

[Phlip]

Hi Tyrone,

Thank you for bringing up inmylingo.com. I had been brainstorming a similar site with a friend of mine in the web development community when I came across inmylingo. As a hearing interpreter, I thought it was brilliant, although there could be concerns about assignment-specific confidentiality in written reviews, given the nature of the profession.

The follow-up to that (in addition to and response to the general interpreter outcry) was a big ol' slap on the wrist from RID, which indicated to me exactly that fear of empowering the community we serve (as you mentioned). 

I have been watching this thread over the last few days, and I keep thinking random thoughts like: "why not make half the board Deaf?" and "shouldn't RID have a Deaf supervisory committee?" and then "why doesn't it ever seem to feel like RID is really truly cooperating and communicating with NAD?" I think back to NAD's call for "Save Our Deaf Schools", and RID's complete and utter lack of supporting response. That is the sign of an organization purporting to be an "ally" without effectively demonstrating such.

I hope desperately that adding an IDP member to the board will be a tiny step for the organization in the direction of thinking about demonstrating support for the community and unifying our populations.

[Naomi Berlove]

First, I really do want to thank you Dan for having the courage to say publicly what I have heard from many others privately. I appreciate hearing the perspective, and want to respond to some of the ideas you have presented as well as those I have heard from others, but I want to be clear that I am not responding to you personally but to the collective viewpoint that you have been representing in this dialogue. I am curious what you (or others who agree with you) think “real competence as an interpreter” is, and why you think real competence is more difficult to achieve than having Deaf heart? 

To me, a competent interpreter must have three fundamental skills: 1) they must be balanced bilinguals (which as Betty rightly pointed out, the majority of interpreters cannot claim to be), 2) they must have the technical skills of interpreting between languages, and most importantly 3) they must have cultural competence (which is really a bunch of sub-competences many of which look a lot like what people call “Deaf heart”).  If Deaf heart is one of the competencies an interpreter has to master, it can’t be the case that competence is more difficult to master than having Deaf heart. Maybe what you meant is that there is a lot of posturing goes on to demonstrate Deaf heart, and I agree that is neither useful nor difficult.

Cultural competence requires understanding of two cultures, and what I find unnerving is that the vast majority of our organization is much better versed in hearing culture than Deaf culture. One of those cultures is marginalized, and in the organization that claims to be “for the Deaf” the Deaf perspective needs to dominant. I think the trend that a lot of people are noticing is that the people who are culturally native to the Deaf world are having a smaller and smaller voice in the organization.

Beyond being cultural natives, Codas are an important voice in this organization because we have been at both sides of the “clientele” of interpreters. Growing up, I relied on interpreters for my grandparents’ funerals, they made it possible for my dad to participate in my school meetings, for him to come to my concerts. Interpreters made it possible for my dad to have a good job at Kodak so he could provide for our family. They meant that I got to be a kid instead of his interpreter. I suffered the price when interpreters did a poor job, and I reaped the benefits when they did a good job. Now as a professional interpreter my technical skills as well as my decisions (and weaknesses) have an impact on other families. I care about this field because it has always been an intimate part of my life, because like it or not it has a huge impact on how my family and my community operate, not because it I can make a good living on it (which I can) or because I find the culture neat. I don’t mean to say it is impossible for hearing people to become versed in Deaf culture or to have the experiences as adults that I had growing up, but it is not something that can be learned in an ITP. Being a Coda does not magically give me or anyone else perfect insight, but there is something valuable about being on both sides of the equation. It makes me nervous that this perspective is not valued by this organization, and like Amy Williamson I am a little embarrassed for it to be publicly asking to be acknowledged.  

I have had enough personal experience and have heard about the experiences of other Codas to make me consistently feel that Codas are shut out of and not valued by this organization. I have repeatedly heard the message that Codas are sloppy, have no boundaries, are not ethical, are not professional, have big egos, are uneducated, don’t know English, and as Rachel said would make things “too Deaf.” When we raise issues like Deafhood or Deaf heart, we are told we are just being “fashionable.” I have heard stories about Codas who are in ITPs being told by their professors on the first day of class that Codas think they know everything. I repeat, Codas who are paying to be enrolled in classes so that they can learn about the profession are told by hearing professors that all Codas think they know everything. The fact that this motion is controversial for political rather than just technical reasons makes me feel shut out.  All of this rhetoric makes it seem that Codas unwelcome in this organization, especially since Codas are wildly outnumbered here. I can understand why folks may not currently want to run for board positions, even if theoretically they are not barred from running. 

I do not feel that this MAL position is necessarily the perfect way to address this issue, but it is the one that is on the table. Supporting this motion is a symbol of what we are as an organization, and where we want to go. It says that the perspective is valued, and that Codas are welcome here too. I am really really thrilled by the overwhelmingly positive response on this discussion board, and I hope that positive response is true for the membership in general. It would go a long way. 

[Dan Parvaz]

Naomi,

First off, thank you for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I agree with the three core competencies you listed for signed language interpreters, and that those of us who are native signers and have native insight into the lived of Deaf people have something vital to contribute... *given that they otherwise demonstrate the core competencies outlined above*. Simply being a coda or being Deaf is neither necessary nor sufficient to contribute to the field, much less lead RID. For every Betty Colonomos, there is at least one anti-Betty (and here I picture Betty, only with a Van Dyke beard à la Star Trek) mucking things up. 

That said... A great many of us fall short of the same competencies. I have yet to attend a spoken language interpreting workshop on "swearing in French" or "country names in German." That we need material at this level in our conferences should be a source of chagrin, and anything that our native-language colleagues can do to help raise the bar is essential. In fact, the only only way I can possibly demonstrate "Deaf heart", at least as a first step, is to be a consistently competent, ethical interpreter. And that first step is a doozy. I hope we can all take it, no matter what our background is.

-Dan.

[Diana MacDougall]

Hear, hear, Dan!!  

Diana Mac

[Betty Colonomos]

Der Dan,

I have stopped taking responsibility for peoples' "anti-Bettyness". I
believe that it is more about what I fight for than me personally.

I do take responsibility for the Betty of 25+ years ago who did not
have the tools and maturity to handle (perceived) adversarial remarks
or behaviors. If there are people out there who choose to perpetuate
the "Betty made someone cry", then so be it. They have probably not
changed very much, anyway (hmmm, was that dismissive?)

Dan, I miss you and our face-to-face talks. Thanks for keeping these
discussions lively (intentionally or not), because we are all learning
so much. I want to take your last paragraph and make a huge banner to
hang at the 2013 Convention. Thanks again for not being afraid of the
truth.

Keep posting!

Happy holidays.

betty

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Dan Parvaz <dpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naomi,
>
> First off, thank you for taking my comments in the spirit in which they
> were intended. I agree with the three core competencies you listed for
> signed language interpreters, and that those of us who are native signers
> and have native insight into the lived of Deaf people have something vital
> to contribute... *given that they otherwise demonstrate the core
> competencies outlined above*. Simply being a coda or being Deaf is neither
> necessary nor sufficient to contribute to the field, much less lead RID.
> For every Betty Colonomos, there is at least one anti-Betty (and here I
> picture Betty, only with a Van Dyke beard à la Star Trek) mucking things
> up.
>
> That said... A great many of us fall short of the same competencies. I have
> yet to attend a spoken language interpreting workshop on "swearing in
> French" or "country names in German." That we need material at this level
> in our conferences should be a source of chagrin, and anything that our
> native-language colleagues can do to help raise the bar is essential. In
> fact, the only only way I can possibly demonstrate "Deaf heart", at least
> as a first step, is to be a consistently competent, ethical interpreter.
> And that first step is a doozy. I hope we can all take it, no matter what
> our background is.
>
> -Dan.
>

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Naomi Berlove <naomi.berl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > First, I really do want to thank you Dan for having the courage to say
> > publicly what I have heard from many others privately. I appreciate hearing
> > the perspective, and want to respond to some of the ideas you have
> > presented as well as those I have heard from others, but I want to be clear
> > that I am not responding to you personally but to the collective viewpoint
> > that you have been representing in this dialogue. I am curious what you (or
> > others who agree with you) think “real competence as an interpreter” is,
> > and why you think real competence is more difficult to achieve than having
> > Deaf heart?
>
> > To me, a competent interpreter must have three fundamental skills: 1) they
> > must be balanced bilinguals (which as Betty rightly pointed out, the
> > majority of interpreters cannot claim to be), 2) they must have the
> > technical skills of interpreting between languages, and most importantly 3)
> > they must have cultural competence (which is really a bunch of
> > sub-competences many of which look a lot like what people call “Deaf

> > heart”).  If Deaf heart *is *one of the competencies an interpreter has

> > to master, it can’t be the case that competence is more difficult to master
> > than having Deaf heart. Maybe what you meant is that there is a lot of

> > posturing goes on to *demonstrate *Deaf heart, and I agree that is

[Bill Moody]

Thanks, Ty, for joining the debate!

 

I’m not so worried about “tokenism”, because the “less-than-savory” characters will have to go through an election process, and even the “unsavory” ones might provoke a backlash favorable to Deaf people in general…

 

As to being “allies”, I do believe that we are, alternately, allies of each of the participants.  Some call that neutral, but I still call it an ally of each interlocutor in turn.  I take the Deaf person’s role, and the hearing person’s role alternately.  If I intervene, rarely, to explain one or the other’s point of view in my role as a linguistic/cultural mediator –  a role I am used to, and not at all ashamed of – I explain in the role of a “mediator/ally-to-both” so that each can understand the other’s position.  There is no “badge” of being an ally of either one or the other client.  I am simply trying to make sure they can understand each other (there are times, by the way, when I am doing more explaining to the hearing client because they are simply not aware of how to deal with a Deaf person, or, alternatively, doing more explaining to the deaf client because they are not famililar with the hearing “system” – that depends on the knowledge and experience of the people I am working with).  I will never take over the advocacy role of the Deaf client, which is his/her due, unless I feel that the Deaf person is having a hard time explaining his/her position.  My experience in the Deaf community, and the Deaf person’s response to my instincts, will tell me if I am going too far, or if I need to do a bit more explaining.  (That sensitivity is very acute among codas, and is learned by long experience among non-codas.  I, as a non-coda, am very sensitive about crossing the line and making decisions about which questions Deaf people can answer for themselves and which questions need my prodding or explanations...).  But this point reinforces the idea that RID needs to have a strong Deaf/coda point of view on the Board and in the training of new interpreters.

 

I am very aware that young interpreters who consider themselves cultural mediators before they are really ready, are not fulfilling their roles as true interpreters.  Experienced interpreters and Deaf consumers need to mentor new interpreters and make sure they know what they are doing before they start “taking over”, or acting as allies for either Deaf or hearing clients...  Young interpreters need to be very careful about becoming “advocates” or speaking for Deaf people before they are ready to do so.

 

Ty, if you want the Deaf perspective and the coda perspective, to be represented in RID, then the Deaf- and coda-reserved positions on the RID Board are exactly what you want…

 

Bill.

 

 

From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyrone Giordano
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:55 AM
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Re: IDP on RID Board Referendum

 

Hi, all--

-Tyrone

[Stephanie Feyne]

I hope y'all had a great winter holiday and will have a fabulous 2013!

I hope you all have felt this is an important discussion.

I certainly have!

It's been very helpful for me to understand reasonings on both sides of this question.

I hope that we can continue it. 

The deadline for the RID vote is Feb 15. If you haven't started discussions with your local chapters, please do!

It's also been brought to my attention that I mischaracterized the RID page with neutral, pro and con positions:

http://www.rid.org/content/index.cfm/AID/135

RID posted the response of each constituent. It was not redacted. Some respondents were more verbose than others:)

The Deaf Caucus Leadership wrote one sentence - in FULL SUPPOT of this motion. 

IDP wrote one paragraph in SUPPORT. 

The Diversity Council wrote 6 paragraphs justifying its position AGAINST the motion. 

The Board is waiting for guidance from the membership on this one.

Just a passing note - it is clear to me that the IDP response in printed English was brief, but they created a collective response in their first language that you saw on the youtube videos. It included Deaf leaders and codas. 

As the Deaf community shares in a collective manner and IPD created a collective visual ASL response, I feel that this is more evidence that RID would benefit from a designated vetted IDP position on the Board. 

I respect the Deaf Caucus and IDP - the only native signing member constituents in our organization - and want to show that respect by supporting this motion.

Since I have just posted the RID formal page, in fairness I am reposting the links provided by IDP

IDP on RID Board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1-_r20L0U

Support IDP Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvS1LCbNfhc

Support IDP Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FUwqPfyb8

You also may visit the IDP website at: http://idp-rid.org

 

Thanks for your involvement in this group and in RID.

Best,

Stephanie

[Betty Colonomos]

I have just sent a letter to the Board and have informed them that I am sharing this with NIDG. I would like  to get your reactions.

Thanks, Betty

To the RID Board,

 

I recognize and appreciate the Board’s efforts to involve the membership in the decision making process. I am writing this to support these efforts so that members can feel confident that the organization is truly committed to its principles as a member-driven organization.

 

It is my understanding that the various committees addressing a specific aspect of membership or organizational policy are one of at least two types:

 

1)    A group of members who are charged with studying an issue and bringing forth a document that lays out the collective positions of the membership for the Board and members-at-large to consider, or

 

2)    A group of members who are qualified in a certain area of expertise that is charged with producing recommendations in order to solve a particular problem.

 

There are also standing committees who deal with issues that are under their purview as spelled out in the By Laws of our organization.

 

The current discussions about Motion E have brought forth some questions that I hope you can address.

 

This issue was referred to the Diversity Council for their review and recommendations to the Board. This appears to be an entity of the second type as described above.  If IDP members are considered to be minorities that are underrepresented in RID, then it follows that members of IDP should be on the Diversity Council. It is clear that the members of this council represent ethnic and racial groups, as well as members of LGBT communities, as it should. Are any of the members interpreters with Deaf parents?

 

One may argue that because there is an IDP group in RID, then there is no need for representation on the Diversity Council.  If that is the Board’s position, why refer this matter to the Diversity Council at all?  It is not surprising that this group raises the issue of representation of minorities on the Board. That is their focus. It may be an issue that we also need to discuss, but it has little to do with the rationale for Motion E.

 

If this matter was to be given to qualified “experts”, than the IDP and DAC should be advising the Board. The DAC fits here because they are the bearers of these bicultural/bilingual offspring who bring their unique perspective to RID.

 

If the Board was seeking input from people outside of IDP and DAC, then it might be more appropriate to form an ad hoc committee of members who could examine the motion from various viewpoints in the membership (which is happening on the National Interpreters Discussion Group.)  If NIDG is any indication of the pulse of the membership who are interested in the organization’s direction, then it is clear that most of the non-IDP member’s responses have clearly articulated their rationale for supporting this motion.

 

Why did the Board refer this to the Diversity Council when it is obvious they would not support it?  Why wasn’t there an attempt to poll the general membership?

 

As the deadline draws near for the voting to close, I believe that the membership deserves to know why these decisions were made. 

 

In the spirit of purported transparency, I await your response.

 

Betty M. Colonomos

 visi...@verizon.net

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear NIDG readers,

Below is the response from the RID Board and my follow up comments.


Brenda,

Thank you and the Board for your timely response. I am glad that my
letter stimulated discussion and perhaps a re-examination of the ways
that the Board communicates with the membership.

I am wondering what happens if (and when in this case) one Council
strongly supports a motion and the other is strongly opposed to it.
Does it go to a third body? Should attempts be made to bring them
together to reach consensus? I don't know if this has happened
before, but now that it has perhaps now is a good time to put a
procedure in place (if there isn't one already.)

My last question has to do with the vote calculations. I assume from
previous involvement with organizations that the vote is calculated on
the basis of the number of votes cast. If the total number of votes
cast is 100, then the number of votes needed to approve a change in
the By Laws is 67. If I am in error, please let me know.

I will post your reply on NIDG so that readers will know that RID
responded quickly.

Thanks again,

Betty M. Colonomos
Director
Bilingual Mediation Center, Inc.
Web:www.visitbmc.com
Email: visi...@verizon.net

Jan 15, 2013 10:51:01 PM, ridpre...@gmail.com wrote:

Betty,

Thank you for your inquiry. Your letter has inspired wonderful
conversations amongst the Board members. In response to your three
explicit questions/comments:

1. “Why did the Board refer this to the Diversity Council when it
is obvious they would not support it?” we see two different issues
within the question. What we can explain is that the Board requests
input from both of our advisory councils (Diversity and Deaf) whenever
we are preparing to put out a statement that is headed for a vote. We
also determine which other leadership groups we feel should share
their opinions as it pertains to assisting the Board. Regarding the
assumption of the Diversity Council's position, when they were
approached, it was not obvious that they would not support the
position. The Board did not request or intentionally ask groups who
would express support and opposition to the motion. Rather, we
followed the same process as we have with other motions and requested
statements from the advisory councils.

2. “Why wasn’t there an attempt to poll the general
membership?” The Board follows the protocol of discussion following
the motion presented to the membership. In this case, the motion was
presented during the 2011 National Conference business meeting, the
motion was discussed and the members voted. The members also had the
opportunity to discuss the motion during Regional meetings, meetings
for which Board members were invited to join. Also, via Regional
Representatives direction, Affiliate Chapters were to discuss with
their members. Finally, the vote does poll the membership and their
response will be the final word on the motion.

3. “If an IDP member is on the Diversity Council?” The Board
strives to identify the appropriate individuals to represent the
diverse perspective of our membership to serve on all volunteer
leadership groups (Councils, Committees, and Task Forces). That said,
there is a member who represents the IDP on the Diversity Council
currently.

Your letter has brought to the Board’s attention that the Board
can do a better job informing and being transparent with the
membership about the processes followed in order to engage feedback
and direction from leadership within the organization. While it is our
hope to always be transparent we realize that our approach may not be
successful 100% of the time. We value your continued input and
feedback.

Sincerely,

Brenda Walker Prudhom, NIC Advanced
RID Board of Directors - President
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
333 Commerce Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-838-0030 (voice)
703-838-0454 (fax)
262-374-0105 cell

[Phlip]

Hello everyone, I'm looking for information on the political history of our profession and organization.

I'm trying to find some resources that specifically explain the involvement of the interpreting community (and RID) in the passage of the various laws that lead to the boom in the demand for interpreting services in the United States; most crucially I am interested in the ADA, although any lead would be helpful.

I have exhausted Google, or I would not be bothering you wonderful people with this inquiry, I suspect the information I seek must be locked in a library or archive somewhere at Gallaudet. If any of you have any leads, electronic or actual print sources, I would be quite grateful.

Thank you,

Philip "Phlip" Wilson

[Audrey]

Actually , Phlip. You should contact RID and I would also look to speak with some of the long standing icons in our field.

Betty Colonomous, bill moody, Stephanie Feyne, Sharon Newman- Solow, Fred Roy..

There are others.

Hope this helps.

Audrey Rosenberg , CI

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary Morin]

Philip,

 

don't forget that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, long precedes the ADA and applies to the Federal government - federally-conducted and federally-funded programs.  So, you may want to include that in your searches and research as well.

--
Gary

Gary M. Morin
(301) 980-9649 Cell and Text Messaging

[Judi Rackivitvh]

Throw in Dennis Cokely :-)


Judi Rackovitch CI and CT

Sent from my iPhone

[Dan Parvaz]

As well as PL 94-142 (now folded into IDEA), as well agency regulations -- Rehab, social security, etc.

[Harris_Tracie]

Here's a thought, look into when and why ITP's were set up. I believe you might see a correlation between regulations and the development of ITPs.

Tracie
________________________________________
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [NI...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Phlip [phlip....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:38 AM
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Cc: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NIDG] RID's Political History as it Relates to the Laws that Influence Out Profession

Thank you,

Philip "Phlip" Wilson

--

[Austin Kocher]

Philip,

This sounds like a great project, Philip. I'm curious what the context of the project is. Is it thesis research or personal interest? My curiosity gets the best of me.

I would also make two very humble suggestions. 

1. There has actually been very little analysis – as far as I can tell – on the growth of the ASL interpreting profession. It has become somewhat common to assume that the federal policies are the "source" of the "interpreting boom" and that those policies were made without the input of interpreters. And that might be where you are going with your research. To be sure, I'm not suggesting that those policies didn't have a significant impact, nor that they were made innocently. But you might be interested first in reviewing what we actually know (and don't know) about the growth of the ASL interpreting profession conditioned by such factors as: North America's economic transition to tertiary and quaternary economies since the restructuring of the late 1970's, the growth of ITP's, the growing Deaf middle class following WW2, as well as a number of factors such as interpreter turnover rates that make it appear that the field is growing quantitatively when it may in fact be that our field has a high turn-over rate that gives that perception. I don't claim to have answers to all these. It's just that I feel pretty comfortable with my review of the literature on interpreting, and I don't see a lot (er... any) good analysis on these issue. It's just an encouragement to pose our starting assumptions (Federal laws caused an interpreter boom.) as questions first (Did federal law cause an interpreter boom? Was there an interpreter boom? To what degree did it occur? What are the various possible reasons for the boom and can we identify one in particular as being the cause?).

2. I would also encourage us to think about the difference between "political history" and "legislative events". From a political or cultural theory perspective (which is what I'm trained in academically), "political history" is about the contingent social structures and ideologies that provide the possibility for particular "events". The legislative history of IDEA, for instance, may or may not have included democratic participation of various organizations and/or social groups. It's an empirical question – and a great one. But a "political history" of the IDEA or the political history of the field of interpreting involves analyzing (for instance) the historically contingent formation of something like a "Deaf community" or the subjective position called "interpreter" and it's subsequent forms of modulation and representation. Only then is it possible to understand how particular discourses and practices become produced or re-produced through particular legislative actions. Does this make sense? For an example of this related to the Deaf community, you might check out Michele Friedner's article below.

Friedner, M. (2010). Biopower, Biosociality, and Community Formation : How Biopower Is Constitutive of the Deaf Community. Sign Language Studies, 10(3), 336–347.

Anyway, it's a contribution that you may take or entirely ignored. :) Good luck with your research and if you are interested in chatting more, I'd love to hear about (and support) your work. All the best!

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher
The Ohio State University
Department of Geography, Ph.D. Student
koch...@osu.edu
http://geography.osu.edu/

[Terri Hayes]

Philip,
I'm pretty sure that RID, and the profession of interpreters had
nothing substantial to do with creating the "boom" in demand for
interpreters. The demand existed prior to and was one of the reasons
for the creation of the RID - to try to put some reins and a direction
on the profession because the demand was creating a situation where
non-qualified people were stepping in and "helping" out... often times
- they helped not by knowing sign and by just taking a parental role -
making the decisions and then writing down what happened after the
fact...
Hence we have the rules that say we are not to be helping as much as
we are to be delivering the information and hopefully the Deaf will be
making their own decisions about their own fates.
And at that time (30 years ago), RID was not "National" in the way we
semiotically value the word "national"... it was People - trying to
create controls on People (distant and local peers)... in an effort to
protect the best interests of the people (Deaf) who needed the
service.
There was nothing "legal" or legislative about it.

In fact, for years and years prior to ADA - RID's main focus was
always 1)trying to get enough money to support the organization, 2)
trying to figure out a way to develope and provide testing of
competency, and scrambling to identify ideas that would allow the
number of (qualified) interpreters to catch up to the demand, and when
the ADA was passed, there was quite a murmur about how this new law
might negatively effect the Deaf people - (by creating a "public" and
legal demand in a situation where there just were not (and are not
still) enough qualified interpreters to satisfy the new (now) Legal
requirments and how it might negatively effect the profession of
interpreters by encouraging (now legally) the use of unqualifed people
in order to satisfy the mandate.

Perhaps someone else on this list has the keys to a secret library...
but I suspect you might be sorely disappointed to find that even if
there is an archive like the one you suggest - it will not be filled
with more than a few broadsheets and reports after the fact regarding
how political changes will/might effect us - rather than what "we" are
going to do about things on a legislative level. RID had plenty of
other things that were more important that Capital Hill.

In fact, the first time I began to hear murmurs regarding the idea of
legislative participation from the "National" organization was after
ADA passed and we were beginning to experience some of the the
ramifications of the new law.

So RID's legislative involvement is VERY recent... (20 years or so -
not more than 25 I dont think...)

but look on the bright side, you're coming in on the ground floor -
anything you come up with, will be the premise upon which all else
rests - and you'll very likely get to interview the people who
actually sat in on the meetings! (What a gift to a historian!)

Good luck
smiling in a snowstorm
Terri Hayes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phlip" <phlip....@gmail.com>
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Subject: [NIDG] RID's Political History as it Relates to the Laws that
Influence Out Profession

> Hello everyone, I'm looking for information on the political history of our profession and organization.
>
> I'm trying to find some resources that specifically explain the involvement of the interpreting community (and RID) in the passage of the various laws that lead to the boom in the demand for interpreting services in the United States; most crucially I am interested in the ADA, although any lead would be helpful.
>
> I have exhausted Google, or I would not be bothering you wonderful people with this inquiry, I suspect the information I seek must be locked in a library or archive somewhere at Gallaudet. If any of you have any leads, electronic or actual print sources, I would be quite grateful.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Philip "Phlip" Wilson
>

[Phlip]

Hey all,

Thanks for all the input. I am definitely aware of (and keeping in mind) the other laws. I mention ADA as an example, and it is perhaps most interesting to me at this moment. However, any resources are welcome.

I'm most interested (at this time) in the movement to create these laws, rather than the effects of them post-passage. I have access to plenty of resources explaining to me the impact of said laws, as the growth of our profession is well documented and can be directly correlated to the passage of the aforementioned.

There is precious little, however, about the fight to get them passed in the first place, and where such stories are told, rarely is there mention of whether interpreters were involved, let alone how (see: http://dredf.org/publications/ada_history.shtml).

I have heard one such gripping protest-story from a revered member of the profession, but that story is a single anecdote. I am looking to collect some numerical data, papers/articles on the subject, and/or significantly more anecdotes from other venerable members of the profession and our shared community.

[Austin Kocher]

Philip,

This sounds really great. Can you please send the information you have on how ADA and the other laws impacted interpreters? Clearly I've missed some important material I would love to get better information about that. Do you mind sharing it?

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher

[Terri Hayes]

There was no action by interpreters... we were too busy trying to
create a profession.

Terri Hayes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phlip" <phlip....@gmail.com>
To: NI...@googlegroups.com

Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Subject: [NIDG] RID's Political History as it Relates to the Laws that
Influence Out Profession

> Hey all,
>
> Thanks for all the input. I am definitely aware of (and keeping in mind) the other laws. I mention ADA as an example, and it is perhaps most interesting to me at this moment. However, any resources are welcome.
>
> I'm most interested (at this time) in the movement to create these laws, rather than the effects of them post-passage. I have access to plenty of resources explaining to me the impact of said laws, as the growth of our profession is well documented and can be directly correlated to the passage of the aforementioned.
>
> There is precious little, however, about the fight to get them passed in the first place, and where such stories are told, rarely is there mention of whether interpreters were involved, let alone how (see: http://dredf.org/publications/ada_history.shtml).
>
> I have heard one such gripping protest-story from a revered member of the profession, but that story is a single anecdote. I am looking to collect some numerical data, papers/articles on the subject, and/or significantly more anecdotes from other venerable members of the profession and our shared community.

> - Show quoted text -
>

[jmil...@frii.com]

This isn't what you need regarding RID's history, but here is a website
on how the Independent Living Movement became a force for change in
Disability Rights:
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/index.html. Also here is
the website for ADAPT, which is a disability rights group that:

ADAPT is a national grass-roots community that organizes disability
rights activists to engage in nonviolent direct action, including civil
disobedience, to assure the civil and human rights of people with
disabilities to live in freedom.

Even if they don't directly help you, you might be able to nose around
the sites to find resources that will help.
Good luck!
Jenny Miller

[jmil...@frii.com]

Sorry, here is ADAPT's website: http://www.adapt.org/
Jenny Miller

[Gary Morin]

If this is the case: the movement to create these laws, rather than the effects of them post-passage,

 

read texts such as "Nothing About Us Without Us," "Disability Rights and Wrongs," and any number of books by Deaf and disability advocates.  Filter my library holdings, http://www.librarything.com/catalog/GaryMMorin, by Disability Studies or Assistive Technology.  Definitely get ahold of A New Civil Right: Telecommunications Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans, by Karen Peltz Strauss, as well as books such as No Pity : People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement; The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public (The History of Disability)

 

And research people like Jeudy Heumann (http://www.npr.org/programs/disability/ba_shows.dir/revoluti.dir/highlights/ada.html), and those in the ICL movement from the 60s onward

[Eileen Forestal]

Hi, Philip. 

Nice to see you are still involved with research. I suggest you look at 'Silver Threads' by Lou Fant and contact Carolyn Ball as she did her dissertation on the history of interpreting, primarily focused on the historical aspects of Conference of interpreter Trainers.  Her dissertation will be published soon, if not already. Her findings will reveal much of the underpinnings of how RID came about, etc. same with Silver Threads book. A good place to start and you can work from there. 

Let us know how you are doing. So many responses to get you started.  Fantastic. Best of luck. 

Eileen Forestal 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Phlip Wilson]

Everyone: the response has been incredible, thank you all.

Judy and Audrey: I may end up doing just that (calling those venerable individuals up and interviewing them). This may turn into an interview and interpreter history project. 

Eileen: Thank you for the recommendation, can you e-mail me directly with contact information for Carolyn Ball?

Gary: Amazing list, I will be going through those, thank you so much.

Jenny: Thank you for the suggestion of ADAPT, I will look into that as well.

Terri: Your perspectives are great, thank you for chiming in on this. I had suspected that it was the case that RID had been too swamped with other issues relating to standardizing qualifications and education for the profession to become involved in the political sphere in terms of joining the protests or Congressional presentations at that time, but I feel that there must have been interpreters involved in some way, professionally or otherwise (certainly in DC itself), and their stories must be fascinating nonetheless.

Austin: The context for this was originally an idea for an article and/or blogpost, but it is quickly growing beyond the initial scope, and now I am not certain where it is going. It may manage to contain itself to an article or it may (dear lord Jesus in heaven forbid) grow itself into a book of some sort. 

   Your inclusion of the political and economic backdrop and shifts in our nation at that time is well taken and I thank you for that.

   Regarding the ADA: it set for the "definition" of a "qualified interpreter". I would refer you to the VIEWS article on the subject: http://files.rid.org/articles/ADASpecialFeature_0710.pdf (you will need to login to view the pdf) and "Sign Language Interpreting, Exploring Its Art and Science" by David A. Stewart, Jerome D. Schein, and Brenda E Cartwright (Second Edition, 2004).

[Theresa B. Smith]

Stimulated by the "Babbidge Report " (Senator Babbidge's
committee/commission in Congress) indicting "oral-education" and
recommending not only the use of interpreters but also the establishment of
additional post-secondary education for deaf youth (Gallaudet was only a
liberal arts college) leading to the establishment of NTID and the Deaf
Program at CSUN - who then desperately needed interpreters and... they ran
out of CODAs....
Which stimulated grant requests to establish ITPs etc.....

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

[Theresa B. Smith]

Indeed books such as Doug Baynton’s “Forbidden Sign” give a large historical picture of the types of discourses Austin mentions.  Ideologies (and discourses) of both “immigration” and “disability” – two categories into which deaf people are often pushed – offer good insights.

 

Theresa

--

[Theresa B. Smith]

We are professional "responders" - responding / reacting rather than
forward-looking as a profession. We respond to what other people say by
interpreting it hour after hour, day after day and... as a group we do the
same, respond to laws, movements that affect us and our work. So now you
have to look into the fields of "psychology" and "identity theory" to really
understand.

Chuckling,
Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

[Stephanie Feyne]

Theresa,

You've been reading my mind (more perceptively that I can, as usual - smile). 

I've been thinking that those individual responses are ethical, political and ideological. Personal, rather than institutional. Then some hot heads [such as members of this group] press RID into creating the institutional support for it - like guidelines for CDIs, rather only certifying Deaf people as RSCs, used only for rating purposes.

Some "responders" make decisions on what to interpret for based on their identity, values and connection to the community.

Examples are - volunteers in the early 504 sit-ins, DPN - at which interpreters were there to ensure the message got out to the hearing community in the media settings (and ensuring that the ones with the requisite skills were there, rather than agency-sent interpreters who had no screening or evaluation for this sort of work, as happens now), hearing interpreters demanding CDI partners for events not for show, but for the caliber of the work, etc. etc. etc.

Stephanie

[Diana MacDougall]

So, so true Theresa. It's neither good nor bad, but an accurate summary of our field, and also accurate suggestions for further study into the topic.

Diana Mac

[Hilary Anne Mayhew]

First of all, what a great thread and amazing resource this NIDG keeps proving itself to be. Thanks to everyone for participating!

This project sounds very interesting, and in light of the 25th anniversary of DPN, very timely. I just wanted to point you to a recent resource that happened here on Gallaudet's campus. (You should be able to contact the Gallaudet PR department to see who organized the event and if you'll be able to access the video). Last Wednesday, there was a DPN 25th Anniversary Gallaudet Presidents' Panel. Note the apostrophe-- 3 Gallaudet presidents were on stage together, reflecting on their experiences of DPN! It was a really wonderful opportunity to capture some of that history.  I. King Jordan told a particular anecdote that I admit gave me goosebumps as I imagined what it might have felt like to be the interpreter when, during an off-campus negotiation meeting, a DPN student organizer respectfully but resolutely informed the Board of Trustee's hearing selectee, "You will never be president of Gallaudet."  The interpreter was unnamed in that interaction of course, and I'm not sure if you were interested in that side of interpreter involvement in Deaf political action, but if so perhaps Presidents Jordan & Davila or Gallaudet Interpreting Services, if they deem it appropriate, could give you more information or good contact people to talk to for more insight about the role of interpreters during both DPN events. I also believe Tony Barraza was involved with the recent DPN as a volunteer interpreter, if you'd like to explore that angle. 

And with that, I wish you good luck with your article/book/curriculum series! :)

Saludos,

Hilary Mayhew

[Hilary Anne Mayhew]

First of all, what a great thread and amazing resource this NIDG keeps proving itself to be. Thanks to everyone for participating!

This project sounds very interesting, and in light of the 25th anniversary of DPN, very timely. I just wanted to point you to a recent resource that happened here on Gallaudet's campus. (You should be able to contact the Gallaudet PR department to see who organized the event and if you'll be able to access the video). Last Wednesday, there was a DPN 25th Anniversary Gallaudet Presidents' Panel. Note the apostrophe-- 3 Gallaudet presidents were on stage together, reflecting on their experiences of DPN! It was a really wonderful opportunity to capture some of that history.  I. King Jordan told a particular anecdote that I admit gave me goosebumps as I imagined what it might have felt like to be the interpreter when, during an off-campus negotiation meeting, a DPN student organizer respectfully but resolutely informed the Board of Trustee's hearing selectee, "You will never be president of Gallaudet."  The interpreter was unnamed in that interaction of course, and I'm not sure if you were interested in that side of interpreter involvement in Deaf political action, but if so perhaps Presidents Jordan & Davila or Gallaudet Interpreting Services, if they deem it appropriate, could give you more information or good contact people to talk to for more insight about the role of interpreters during both DPN events. I also believe Tony Barraza was involved with the recent DPN as a volunteer interpreter, if you'd like to explore that angle. 

And with that, I wish you good luck with your article/book/curriculum series! :)

Saludos,

Hilary Mayhew

On Saturday, February 9, 2013, Diana MacDougall wrote:

[Terri Hayes]

I'm not sure it would be a good thing if Mr. Barraza (or any of the
past working interpreters) would be willing to share their
experiences... distance of time aside - I believe our work is still
confidential... (which is very likely why the interpreters in the
earlier events were not named).

Does make it difficult to keep track of what we do and or are involved
in through time (as messengers of history)... but then, perhaps that
just puts some measure of responsibility on the Deaf community to keep
that recognition alive -
They would be the ones to remember, to name and to appreciate.

interesting thought.

Terri Hayes


----- Original Message -----

[Phlip]

Yes, this NIDG has turned out to be an amazing resource. I have to sit down as soon as I find the time and compile all of these resources into a comprehensive list. Thanks again to everyone for participating!

[Nancy Frishberg]

+1 on what Theresa said. 

I expect some of the story Phlip wants is told in Jerome Schein's book "A Rose for Tomorrow: Biography of Frederick C. Schreiber."  (I have seen this book, but don't own it.) Fred was the activist ED of NAD who either coined the phrase or popularized it, "The only thing that deaf people can't do is hear," and I would suggest he was among the prime movers in justifying the federal level support for interpreter training when the supply of CODAs was recognized as a limited resource. Fred acknowledged the debt he owed to the civil rights movement of the 1950's in creating a "frame" for deaf people to gain attention for their needs.

--
Nancy Frishberg   nancyf at gmail dot com

[Phlip Wilson]

Thank you, if I hadn't already, I have added this to my growing list. It is humbling to receive so many resources from so many amazing interpreters.

--